In a recent ruling on professional ethics and accountability in the legal profession, the Supreme Court of India upheld a seven-year suspension imposed on an advocate by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for serious misconduct and for defying a previous suspension order.
The incident began with a complaint filed by Hariharasudan, the owner of a hotel in Madurai, against Advocate R. Karmagam. According to the complaint, the advocate drove his vehicle into the hotel premises, allegedly causing damage to the property. The nature of the act, reportedly reckless and possibly under the influence, though not legally established, was brought before the Bar Council of India as a case of professional misconduct.
Read More: Income Tax Portal Woes: Is Infosys or FinMin to Blame?
Acting on the complaint, the Bar Council of India conducted a disciplinary inquiry and, under its powers granted by the Advocates Act, 1961, imposed a one-year suspension on the advocate’s license to practice law. Dissatisfied with what he considered a lenient penalty, the hotel owner approached the Supreme Court seeking a harsher punishment. The court upheld the original suspension and declined to interfere.
Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals, Click Here
After the Supreme Court’s decision, the complainant discovered that the advocate continued to file vakalatnamas and engage in legal practice during the one-year suspension period. Taking this violation seriously, the Bar Council extended the suspension period from one year to seven years. Advocate Karmagam then filed a fresh appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the Council’s jurisdiction to revisit and revise its earlier decision, particularly after the Court had already affirmed the initial penalty.
Read More: Govt to Amend Advocates Act, Invites Public Suggestions
The advocate’s counsel argued that the seven-year suspension exceeded the disciplinary powers granted under the Advocates Act and was imposed without legal basis. The primary argument was that the Bar Council could not reopen the matter once the Supreme Court had upheld the original decision.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed this argument, observing that the continued practice during the suspension constituted fresh grounds for disciplinary action. Justice Nath observed that as an officer of the court, the advocate was expected to uphold high standards of professional conduct. Instead, his actions had not only brought disrepute to himself but had also tarnished the image of the legal community at large.
Complete Blueprint for Preparing Project Reports, Click here
The court further held that the Bar Council’s second disciplinary action was not a mere review but a separate proceeding based on new facts, namely, the violation of the original suspension order. It concluded that the extension of suspension from one year to seven years was within the legal framework and proportionate to the misconduct.
The appeal was dismissed. The order is still awaited in C.A. No. 7096/2025, Diary No. 28536/2025, titled R. Karmegam v. Hariharasudan.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
