The Bombay High Court on Friday stayed an order by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) commencing disciplinary proceedings against Government counsel Geeta Shashtri.
A division bench comprised of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale further directed that any subsequent procedures arising from the order be stayed till the next hearing i.e., April 12, 2023.
A lawyer approached the BCMG with a complaint that Shashtri committed forgery and perjury by signing certain papers attached to an affidavit.
The division bench inquired as to whether the BCMG had launched a “witch hunt” against all advocates.
“Has the Bar Council initiated a witch hunt against advocates? On the basis of the annexures there is a complaint that there is no practice note and but an order. And basis that there is disciplinary proceedings. These are people in government service! We will stay it, we will order a stay on the proceedings. Some complainant has claimed contempt and perjury… Why is the Bar council getting into this against its own advocates?” the bench asked.
Geeta Shashtri moved the Court challenging an order of the BCMG’s single member committee relegating the issue to a disciplinary body under the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Her petition stated that in a suit against the State government, a written statement with annexed documents had been filed.
Another government lawyer had signed the documents as true copies. Meanwhile, Shashtri had signed the written declaration, which included the annexures.
The lawyer opposing the State government took objection to the ‘true copy sign’ and filed an application before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, alleging perjury and forgery against Shashtri.
In the affidavit filed in response to the complaint, Shashtri at the outset pointed out that the suit before the City Civil Court had been transferred from the High Court. She further stated that the true copy signatures were a requirement of the High Court as per a practice note (procedure guidelines issued by the High Court for filing proceedings).
According to the lawyer, there is no such practice note.
Shashtri responded by asserting that it was a ‘practice’ which was carried out at the High Court in accordance with a judicial order.
The lawyer filed a complaint with the BCMG after being dissatisfied with this explanation.
Shashtri filed an appeal with the High Court after the BCMG issued an order seeking that the disciplinary proceedings be initiated.
She stated that because forgery proceedings were pending in the City Civil Court, it was proper for the Bar Council not to rule on the matter.
“What was she (Shashtri) supposed to do? She followed procedure as per high court order. Every advocate is to certify annexures. It is a practice, call it a tradition!” the Bench said.
The division bench granted leave to Shashtri to amend her petition and add Bar Council of India as a party to the proceedings and issued notice to the BCI.
The court listed the matter for final hearing on April 12, 2023.
