Embezzlement of funds case: ‘Bar Council of India orders suffer from ‘jurisdictional error’

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal has passed the order while hearing the petition filed by Anjali Kukar and others. Malik and Tiwana are facing allegations of embezzlement of public funds.

The petitioners had moved to the high court, against two interlocutory orders — July 30 and September 27 — both passed by the BCI.

On July 10, the BCPH had suspended the licence of Malik and debarred him from practice till the final decision on his complaint is not reached. Similarly, the BCPH, on July 26, refrained Tiwana to act as secretary.

Both, however, challenged the order of BCPH before the BCI.

Later, the BCI held that the interim order dated July 10 of the BCPH is kept “in abeyance till the next date of hearing”. While hearing a similar plea, the BCI again stayed the BCPH’s order against Tiwana.

Meanwhile, as the present petition came up for hearing before the high court on Saturday, Amit Vaid, member of the BCI and also of the Disciplinary/Revision Committee, and Prateek Sodhi, also appearing on behalf of the BCI, were heard through video conferencing.

On a specific query made by the court as to the scope and sweep of Section 48A of Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) as to whether the BCI can assume revisional jurisdiction in a matter, which is pending before State Bar Council, neither Vaid nor Sodhi were able to answer the query and sought time. Vaid and Sodhi assured the court that the revision plea before the BCI shall be decided as early as possible.

The high court thus observed that since there is no assistance from the BCI in respect of scope and spirit of Section 48A of the Act, it is of “the considered prima facie view that the revisional jurisdiction by the BCI can only be assumed… when a matter is disposed of by a State Bar Council or a committee thereof, but not during pendency of proceedings before State Bar Council.”

The bench further noted that “it appears that the orders challenged herein passed by BCI are prima facie suffer from jurisdictional error… Accordingly, the orders dated September 27, 2024 and July 30, 2024, impugned herein, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing”.

The matter will be next heard on October 23.

Curated For You

Dhurandhar Box Office Collection Worldwide Day 17 Update: Midnight shows of Ranveer Singh’s film go housefull; earns epic Rs 870 cr globally, eyes at Rs 600 cr club in India on Day 18

‘Burger from outside and salad from inside’: Psychologist explains why clean version of junk food gives satisfaction to many, including Kartik Aaryan and Ananya Panday

PM Modi says Congress would have let ‘Assam go to East Pakistan’: What was the 1946 plan; what Nehru, Gandhi said then