THE MATTER OF MR. 'A' AN ADVOCATE versus .

SINHA, C. J.-The Advocate proceeded against for professional misconduct was enrolled an advocate of the Allahabad Hi~h Court in December 1958. In January 1961, he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court. 'fhe proceedings against him were taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in 0. IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules.

p. 289

In March this year the Registrar of this Court received a letter, marked 'Secret', from Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of law & Judiciary, to the effect that the "Advocate on Record" of the Supremr Court had addressed a post-card, dated January 1, 1961, to the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra., which "constitutes a gross case of advertisement a.nd solicitation for work." The original post-card was enclosed with the letter, with the request that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justfoe and the other Judges of the Supreme Court for such action as to their Lordships ma.y seem fit a.nd proper. The post-card, which was marked as Ex:. A in the proceedings which followed, is in these terms :

p. 289

Mr. •A'. Advocate on Record. Supreme Court, Office a.nd Residence B-9, Model Town, Delhi.9. Dated 19-1-61. Dear Sir, Jai Hind.

pp. 289–290

Your attention is drawn to the rule 20 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules 1950 (as amended upto date) to appoint an Advocate on Record in tho Supreme Court ae according to this rule 'no advocate other than an advooate on Record shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advoc9.te on Record.'

p. 290

You might have got an Advocate on Rccor<l in this Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if yon so wish and agree.

p. 290

Hoping to be favoured. Thanks, Y oura sincerely,

p. 290

Sd: •A' To The Minister of Law, Government of Maharashtra,

p. 290

Bombay.'' When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, he directed the Registrar informally to enquire from the Advocate conoerned whether the post-card in question had been written by him and bore his rubber stamp and signature. The Registrar called him, and in answer to his queries, the Advocate admitted that the post-card bore his rubber stamp and signature and that it bad in fact been despatched by him. He al80 informed the Registrar that he had addressed similar post-cards to other parties. The Advocate added that he did not realise that in addressing those post-cards he was committing any wrong or breach of etiquette. The Chief Justice, on receiving the aforesaid information, placed the matter before a Committee of three Judges of this Court, under r. 2, 0. IV-A. The Committee considered the matter referred to it, and on re om vmg its opinion, the Chief Justice const i t11ted a Tribunal of three members of the Bar, Shri Bishan Narain and Shri A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate1, and Shri I. N. Shroft', Advocate, with Shri Bish1m Narain as its President, for holding the necessary enquiry into the alleged conduct of the Advocate proceeded against. In reply to the notice served on the Advocate, he chose to behave in a most irresponsible way by alleging that the complaint in question by the Government of Maharashtra "is false, mala fide and misconceived". He denied that he had written the letter in question, which he characterised as "the work of any miscreant". He added further that even if it were provPd that the letter in question had been written by him, a mere perusal of it would show that there was nothing unprofessional or otherwise objectionable in it, and he added further that "certainly it is not solicitation of work if one inquires from any person whether it requires or wishes and agrees to have the services of another advocate". The Advocate w11s examined as witness on his own behalf 11nd the· Tribunal put the po~t-card to him. The following questions by the Tribunal and answers bv the Advocate will show the determined way in which he denied what he had admitted to the Registrar. · "Tribunal : This post-card which has been brought to the notice of the Court purports to be from you. Is this the post-card which you

pp. 290–291

have written ? Witness : No. Tribunal : Has it not gone from your office ? Witness : No. There is no doubt it bears the seal of my office, but it has not been affixed by me. Tribune.I : You sa.y it docs bear your name and that the rubber stamp which appears is of your office but that

pp. 291–292

it has not bocn affixed by you. \Vitness : Yes. Tribunal : IR the hand-writing which one finds on this Post-card your

p. 292

hand-writing ? WitneRB : No. Tribunal : And the signature which is at the foot of the letter, you say,

p. 292

is not your signature.

p. 292

Witness : No, it is not. mine" The Tribunal pursued tho matter further to find out as to how the post-card had purported to emanat'3 from his office, and then certain documents, marked Exs. B to E, were brought on the record with a view to comparing his admitted hand-writing in those documents with that of the post-card in question. The Tribunal also ma.de him write a letter in the verv terms in which the postcard is written, with a viev/ to making a comparison of the handwriting on the post-card with his admitted writing in identical terms, given by him in Court. The Tribunal then confronted him with his admissions made to the Registrar, as a{oresaid, before the proceedings started. Thti following questions and answers will further indicate his attitude;

p. 292

"Tribunal : In what rcs1'ects do you find any difference between your normal signature and this signature (signature on the post-card

p. 292

is shown to him). \Vitness: It '1ppears to be like my signature, but it is not my signature. Signature on Ex. A is not my signature. Tribunal: In connection with this post-card did you see the Registrar (Sup-

pp. 292–293

reme Court) ? Witness : Yes, he called me. Tribunal: When? Do you know the date? Witness : I <lo not remember. Tribunal: Did you say anything to him ? Witness: I did not make any statement.

p. 293

He showed me the post·card. I told him, as I said here, that I had not written it; somebody

p. 293

else might have written it. Tribunal: Did you admit before the Rei;is· trar that this letter was writt,m

p. 293

by you? Witness: I did not admit it, but he told me that if I admitted it, the

p. 293

matter might be hushed up. Tribunal : Did you say to the Registrar that you did not realise that in so doing you were doing any-

p. 293

thing wrong ? Witness: No. I did not say anything. Tribunal: Do you want to produce any

p. 293

evidence ? Witness: No, because I have not done anything; so, I do not want to produce any evidence. Even if it is found that I have written the post-card, even then on merits,

p. 293

there is nothing in this Case".

p. 293

Finding that the Advocate was adamant in his denial th<it he wrote the post-card or that he had made any statement before the Registrar, the Tribunal called the Registrar as a witness and xamined him on solemn affirmation. The Registrar ave his evidence and fully supported his previous report that the Advocat~ had made those admissions before him.

pp. 293–294

After recording the evidenc<', ural and documentary, the Tribnna 1 made the report that in spite of stout denial by the Advocate concerned, the Tribunal was satisfied that the post· card in quest.ion had been written by him. The Tribunal was also of opinion that the Advocate did not realis(• that in writing the post-card he \\'a,; committing a breach of profc88ional etiquette and of professional ethics. It also remarked that it was unfortunate that the Advocate chose to deny the authorship of the post-card. The findings of the Tribunal, along with the evidence and record of the case, have been placed before us. The Advocate, on notice, has appeared before us and we have heard him. Before us also the Advocate first took up the same attitude as ho had adopted before the Tribunal, but on being preBBed by the Court to make a true statement as to whether be had written the post-co.rd and had admitted before the Registrar that he had done so, he answered in the affirmative.

p. 294

It is dear beyond any shadow of doubt that the Advocato had addressed the letter aforesaid to the Government of Maharashtra, soliciting their briefs; that he had admitted to the Registrar ot' this Court that he had written tho post-card and other such post-can.ls to other parties, and that ho did so in utter disregard of his position as an Advocate of this Court. It is equally clear that his denial of having written the post-card, and of having ~ub­ scqucntly admitted it to the Registrar, was again in utter disregard of truth. He hll.B, in this Court, condemned himself as a liar and as one who is either ignorant of the elementary rules of professional ethics or has no regiird for them. In our opinion, the Advocate he.a mlsl'hoscn his profeBBion. A ppareu tly he is man of very weak moral fibre. If he is ignorant of the elementary rules of professional . ethics, he has demonstrated the inadequacy of his training and education befitting a member of the profession of law. If he knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief and even then wrote the post-ca.rd in question, he is a very unworthy mem her of the learned profession. In any view of the matter, he does not appear to be possessed of a high moral calibre, which is essential for a member of the legal profession. If anything, by adopting the attitude of denial which has been demonstrated to be falEe in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, he has not deserved well of the Court even in the matter of amount of punishment to be meted to him for his proved misconduct. In our opinion, he fully deserves the punishment of suspension from practice for five years. This punishment will give him enough time and opportunity for deciding for himself, after deep deliberation and introspection, whether he is fit to continue to be a member of the legal profession. In our view he is not. Let him learn that a lawyer must never be a liar.

pp. 294–295

RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL

p. 295

v.

p. 295

STATE OF PUNJAB (B. P. C. J., K. RAo, J.C.

p. 295

and J. R. JJ.)

p. 295

Jail Adm~n~stration-Separation of prisoners-Oellular confi.nemen,,_V o(-Rute permitting separate confinement by "¥ht-Oo?"titutwnality of-Prisons Act, 1894(9 of 1894), Pun;ab Jail Manual Paras, 571,575-0onstit,,1.:on of India, Art. 14.

p. 295

ln May, 1959, the appellant was sent to Arnbala Jail as

p. 295

9n of alleg7d to have bee~ committed by him the Superintendent of Jar! segregated hun from other prisoners and kept him in a separate cell. He was convicted in June, 1960. Thoogh he was

p. 295