The Supreme Court criticized the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for pursuing malicious charges against advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri. Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed special leave petitions challenging the Bombay High Court's decision to cancel disciplinary proceedings against Shastri. The bench imposed Rs 50,000 penalties on both the Bar Council and complainant Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad for causing harassment. The dispute began when Bhakad accused Shastri of supporting false statements in an affidavit where she merely identified a party. The Bombay High Court determined that identifying someone does not make an advocate responsible for affidavit contents.
The Supreme Court upheld this decision and called the complaint absurd and baseless. The justices noted that attestation alone does not make lawyers responsible for sworn statement contents. They found the Bar Council's actions illegal and bordering on misconduct. The court ordered payment of imposed costs to Shastri within four weeks through the Bombay High Court registry. This case establishes that advocates cannot be held liable for simply identifying parties in legal documents.
The Supreme Court upheld this decision and called the complaint absurd and baseless. The justices noted that attestation alone does not make lawyers responsible for sworn statement contents. They found the Bar Council's actions illegal and bordering on misconduct. The court ordered payment of imposed costs to Shastri within four weeks through the Bombay High Court registry. This case establishes that advocates cannot be held liable for simply identifying parties in legal documents.
