A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The case In the Matter of D, an Advocate of the Supreme Court ([1955] 2 SCR 1006) addresses the legal interpretation of “misconduct” under Section 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. The case questions whether an advocate can be disciplined for misconduct not in their professional but personal capacity. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s disciplinary action against the advocate, who, while being tried under the Bombay Prohibition Act, engaged in persistent rudeness and contemptuous conduct toward the presiding Magistrate. The Court interpreted “other misconduct” expansively and concluded that advocates must maintain the dignity of the profession at all times. The Court emphasized that misconduct in any capacity which undermines the judiciary or brings disrepute to the legal fraternity is actionable under the Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the one-year suspension imposed by the Bombay High Court and extended it to all courts under its jurisdiction. The judgment reinforces judicial discipline and ethical advocacy standards, marking a precedent for bar disciplinary jurisprudence.

Keywords: Advocate Misconduct, Bar Councils Act, Supreme Court Disciplinary Jurisdiction, Legal Ethics, Judicial Respect

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
In the Matter of D, an Advocate of the Supreme Court

ii) Case Number:
Not expressly mentioned; disciplinary proceedings under Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules

iii) Judgement Date:
23rd November 1955

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
B. K. Mukherjea, C.J., S. R. Das, and Venkatarama Ayyar, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice S. R. Das

vii) Citation:
[1955] 2 SCR 1006

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act, 1926
Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
*None specifically overruled; earlier precedents like In re Thomas James Wallace distinguished.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Professional Ethics, Constitutional Law, Legal Profession Regulation, Criminal Law, Judicial Conduct

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
This judgment arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated after the Bombay High Court suspended a practicing advocate for one year. The suspension was a consequence of his misconduct during trial proceedings in a criminal case under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The accused-advocate had shown repeated disrespect and contempt toward the Magistrate, and the High Court considered such actions grave enough to warrant suspension. The Supreme Court Rule under Order IV, Rule 30 empowers the Court to initiate proceedings in such instances. The central question was whether conduct outside a lawyer’s professional engagements could constitute “misconduct” under Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act, 1926. The Court took this opportunity to clarify that advocates, as officers of the court, carry the obligation of upholding the dignity of the judiciary at all times, irrespective of their capacity.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The advocate in question was prosecuted in 1953 under the Bombay Prohibition Act before Mr. T. A. Sonavane, Presidency Magistrate. During the trial, the advocate, appearing in person, exhibited obstinate and disrespectful behaviour. He was repeatedly rude and contemptuous, disrupted the proceedings, and undermined the authority of the Court. The trial concluded with a conviction, sentencing the advocate to one month of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹201, later converted by the Bombay High Court into a ₹1,000 fine upon appeal. However, the focus of the disciplinary action shifted not to the conviction itself but to the advocate’s courtroom behaviour. The Magistrate’s report to the Bombay High Court triggered a disciplinary inquiry by a Tribunal formed under the Bar Council. The advocate initially raised procedural objections but later issued an unconditional apology and admitted to the facts in the report, which included serious allegations of interference with judicial decorum. The Tribunal, finding his conduct unacceptable, recommended disciplinary action, leading to the High Court’s one-year suspension. The Supreme Court then considered if the misconduct warranted further or concurrent action at the national level.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Can misconduct outside professional legal representation qualify as ‘misconduct’ under Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act, 1926?
ii) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against an advocate based on personal behaviour in a criminal trial?
iii) Is the conduct of an advocate during personal legal proceedings relevant to professional ethics and fitness to practice?
iv) Should a prior apology and admission be a mitigating factor in disciplinary punishment?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:
The respondent-advocate, appearing in person, challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. He claimed that the misconduct was not professional but personal, as he was the accused in the criminal case. He argued that Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act did not cover acts committed in a private capacity. He alleged procedural unfairness and bias in the Tribunal’s functioning, citing that no formal charge was framed and that a previous decision indicating lack of jurisdiction was reversed without his knowledge. He relied on the Privy Council decision in In re Thomas James Wallace [1866] L.R. I P.C. 283, suggesting that such misconduct in personal capacity falls outside Bar Council jurisdiction. He also cited In re an Advocate of Benares (AIR 1932 All 492) to reinforce the distinction between professional and personal conduct. Furthermore, he emphasized the apologetic stance he took, claiming that he was compelled to submit an apology under pressure and that a fresh, independent inquiry should be initiated by the Supreme Court itself.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:
The Attorney General, appearing as amicus curiae, argued for upholding professional discipline. He asserted that the term “misconduct” in Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act must be construed widely. Misbehaviour in any judicial forum by a legal professional — regardless of personal or professional status — affects public confidence in the legal system. He referred to The Advocate-General of Bombay v. Three Advocates [1934] ILR 59 Bom 57 and In the Matter of an Advocate [1936] ILR 63 Cal 867, which upheld disciplinary actions even for misconduct outside the direct practice of law. The counsel emphasized that an advocate holds the badge of the legal profession wherever he goes, especially in a courtroom. The past apology cannot erase the severity of the misconduct, and the Court must enforce a standard of conduct that preserves judicial dignity and professional integrity.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act, 1926
Gives the High Court power to suspend or remove an advocate for “professional or other misconduct.” This includes behaviour outside court that discredits the profession. (Section 10 link)

ii) Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules
Empowers the Supreme Court to initiate suo moto action for professional misconduct.

iii) Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Allows High Courts to supervise and control subordinate courts and tribunals, which the advocate unsuccessfully invoked to quash the disciplinary proceedings.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Court held that an advocate’s misconduct in a courtroom, even while acting in personal capacity, falls under “other misconduct” within Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act, 1926. The advocate disrupted court proceedings and acted contemptuously. Such actions severely compromise the dignity of the court and the reputation of the legal profession. The Court reasoned that the legal profession demands adherence to the highest ethical standards not just during representation of clients, but in all circumstances where the advocate is present before a court. The decisions in The Advocate-General of Bombay v. Three Advocates, In the Matter of an Advocate (1936), and In re a Pleader [1943] ILR Mad 459 affirm this principle.

b. OBITER DICTA
The Court observed that attempts to escape punishment by offering apologies after admitting guilt and reversing position when outcomes are unfavourable cannot be encouraged. Such conduct, particularly when coupled with admitted facts, makes the request for a new inquiry untenable.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Advocates must uphold the dignity of the profession at all times, even when appearing in personal capacity.

• Misconduct in judicial forums, even outside client representation, is punishable under Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act.

• Apologies made after procedural admissions cannot be used later to seek relief from disciplinary measures.

• Disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court is not restricted to professional conduct alone but encompasses all actions affecting the legal system’s integrity.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case stands as a robust affirmation of ethical conduct within the legal profession. It clarifies the scope of “misconduct” as not confined merely to representation of clients but extending to courtroom behaviour, even when personal. The Court’s interpretation of Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act sets a strong precedent by asserting that the rule of law and respect for the judiciary are paramount. Advocates, as court officers, must respect this boundary, or face disciplinary consequences. The ruling also demonstrates that ethical expectations transcend technicalities, and no apology can whitewash grave misconduct. It upholds institutional respect and professional accountability as foundational pillars of India’s legal framework.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. In re Thomas James Wallace [1866] L.R. 1 P.C. 283
ii. In re an Advocate of Benares, AIR 1932 All 492
iii. The Advocate-General of Bombay v. Three Advocates [1934] ILR 59 Bom 57
iv. In the Matter of an Advocate, [1936] ILR 63 Cal 867
v. In re a Pleader, ILR [1943] Mad 459
vi. In the matter of Mr. G, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, [1955] 1 SCR 490

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Bar Councils Act, 1926, Section 10 — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1037829/
ii. Supreme Court Rules, Order IV, Rule 30
iii. Constitution of India, Article 227
iv. Bombay Prohibition Act