WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT AND ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE RENDER DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ADVOCATE UNSUSTAINABLE

INTRODUCTION
In its Judgment dated 29 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, has held that disciplinary proceedings against an advocate cannot be sustained where the complainant has withdrawn the complaint, expressed satisfaction with the advocate’s services and no independent evidence of professional misconduct exists. The decision, rendered in Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2026), provides critical guidance on the scope of professional accountability under the Advocates Act, 1961, while cautioning against mechanical or punitive disciplinary action divorced from evidentiary foundations

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Appellant-Advocate was engaged by the Respondent-Complainant to pursue quashing of an FIR before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the basis of a compromise. Although the High Court initially allowed the quashing petition subject to deposit of costs, the matter became complicated due to non-deposit of costs within the stipulated time, leading to recall of the quashing order and revival of criminal proceedings.
Subsequently, upon appropriate steps being taken, the High Court restored the quashing petition, enhanced the costs and ultimately quashed the FIR. During this interregnum, the Respondent-Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act alleging negligence on the part of the appellant-advocate.
Significantly, during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Complainant filed a sworn affidavit clarifying that the Complaint had arisen from a misunderstanding regarding costs, that the issue stood resolved and that he was fully satisfied with the professional services rendered by the advocate. He categorically expressed his desire to withdraw the Complaint.
Despite this, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India proceeded to hold the Appellant-Advocate guilty of professional misconduct, imposing a monetary penalty and directing suspension upon non-compliance. This Order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
The core issues before the Court were:
1) Whether disciplinary proceedings can validly continue after the complainant has withdrawn allegations and affirmed satisfaction with the advocate’s conduct; and
2) Whether a finding of professional misconduct can be sustained in the absence of evidence, examination of the complainant, or opportunity of cross-examination.

SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS
1. Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint
The Supreme Court noted that the Complainant had filed a categorical sworn affidavit stating that the dispute stemmed from frustration and misunderstanding and not from any professional lapse. Once such affidavit was placed on record, the Court held that the very substratum of the disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist.
The Bench observed that while disciplinary jurisdiction is not strictly adversarial, it cannot be exercised in abstraction or isolation from the factual reality that the Complainant himself no longer alleged misconduct.

2. Absence of Evidence and Procedural Fairness
A critical infirmity identified by the Court was the complete absence of evidentiary support for the allegations. The Complainant was not examined on oath, no evidence was led to substantiate negligence and the Advocate was denied the indefeasible right of cross-examination.
The Court held that bald allegations, untested by evidence, cannot constitute professional misconduct and that disciplinary findings based solely on pleadings violate basic principles of fairness and natural justice.

3. Misunderstanding Cannot Be Elevated to Misconduct
The Supreme Court further held that the genesis of the dispute was a procedural lapse arising from misunderstanding regarding deposit of costs, which stood cured during the course of proceedings. Elevating such a lapse to the level of professional misconduct, particularly after resolution of the issue, was held to be legally unsustainable.
The Court cautioned that disciplinary jurisdiction is corrective, not punitive, and must not be exercised in a manner that chills the independence of the Bar or penalises advocates for resolved procedural issues.

FINAL DECISION
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the Order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 4 April 2025 and held that the finding of professional misconduct against the Appellant-Advocate was unsustainable in law as well as on facts. No order as to costs was passed

KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES REAFFIRMED
1) Withdrawal of a disciplinary complaint, coupled with an affidavit of satisfaction, extinguishes the foundation of disciplinary proceedings, unless independent misconduct is demonstrably established.
2) Professional misconduct must be proved by evidence, not inferred from allegations.
3) Natural justice, including the right to cross-examination, is integral to disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act.
4) Procedural misunderstandings, once resolved, cannot be retrospectively criminalised or professionalised into misconduct.
5) Bar Councils must exercise disciplinary powers with restraint, proportionality and evidentiary rigour.

CONCLUSION
This Judgment is an important reaffirmation that disciplinary proceedings against advocates cannot survive on conjecture, dissatisfaction that no longer exists or allegations unsupported by evidence. By setting aside punitive action in the absence of substantiated misconduct, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that professional accountability must be grounded in proof, fairness and continuing grievance; not hindsight or procedural irritation.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Understanding SARFAESI Act | Rights of Borrowers 2025, DRT, Supreme Court Judgments” can be viewed at the link below: