Case Description
H. Manjunath v. Karnataka State Bar Council
Karnataka High Court
Case Type: Writ Petition
Case No.: WP No. 27909 of 2023
Date of Order: 03.01.2024
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Facts
- The Petitioner is a practicing advocate. He faced a series of allegations of activities, falling into category of sexual harassment, from Respondent 2. These allegations were based on messages sent on WhatsApp.
- Complaint got registered on 02.09.2023 before the Karnataka Bar Council and a notice was sent to the Petitioner. On receipt of the notice, he requested the Council to grant him 10-14 days to submit his response. This communication was sent on 05.10.2023.
- The Council waited for 30 days from the date of communication and then passed an order and issued a notification, where it suspended the Petitioner’s enrolment with immediate effect and resolved to suspend the Petitioner till the inquiry is completed. Moreover, it referred the same to Disciplinary Committee.
- Aggrieved, the Petitioner challenged the Council’s order and notification suspending his licence to practice.
Issues
- Whether the Petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case?
- Whether Council’s order and notification, passed without Petitioner’s response to complaint, can be set aside?
Petitioner’s Argument
- Petitioner acknowledged that there had already been a delay of 15 days on his part. However, he still requested the Council to give him merely an additional 15 more days.
- Moreover, he highlighted that the complaint averments which formed the content of the order of suspension, led to serious consequences. Therefore, he contended that the Council should not have suspended his practice without availing him an opportunity to put forward his defence.
- Lastly, he added that the complaint itself is not maintainable as the allegations are against a co-advocate. Hence, the matter ought to have been placed before a committee instituted under Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013 (“POSH Act”). The Council did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The Council argued that the Petitioner was provided sufficient time to submit his explanation, and he did not utilize it. Therefore, the Council contended that its order and notification were not illegal or irregular.
- The second Respondent’s Counsel sought dismissal of the petition by projecting the conduct of the Petitioner being unworthy of court’s consideration.
Court’s Analysis
- On its observation, the Court narrowed down its scope of interference to the issue of whether the Petitioner was granted adequate opportunity to present his defence.
- The Hon’ble Bench perused the order, notification, and Petitioner’s representation seeking additional time, and highlighted that the Petitioner appeared to have been unaware of an order passed.
- An analysis of the averment present before the court shows that the Petitioner found out about the order and notification through social media. Only then did he reach out to the Council or any other fora. Thus, the order was passed without considering any objections raised by the Petitioner.
- Moreover, a reading of the order passed also indicated that the Petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence.
Conclusion
- The Court considered the effect of the order passed without the defence of Petitioner and concluded that the content of the order would result in severe professional and civil consequence to the Petitioner.
- As the Petitioner should have had an opportunity to reasonably defend himself against such serious allegations, the Court granted him one more opportunity up to 10.01.2024 to file his objections before the Council.
- The order was thus set aside.
[The Secretary of POSH Committee of Council made a submission that the Committee was not aware of the current proceeding. It only came to know when the Petitioner communicated the order to it, alleging that the matter is related to sexual harassment. The Court placed no merit on this submission as currently it only dealt with violation of Principles of Natural Justice. However, asked for a reference to be made to the committee.]