Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, challenging the disciplinary processes taken against him by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG).
In response to legal actions taken against him for allegedly making “malicious” and “obnoxious” comments to the media during hearings on the Maratha reservation issue and those connected to the legal dispute over the strike by employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), Sadavarte filed two petitions.
Proceedings were also filed against the lawyer for wearing a black coat with a band to public events, including an MSRTC employees agitation, in violation of Bar Council India (BCI) ethics rules.
Advocate Sadavarte, who was defending MSRTC workers in the High Court, including striking staff, was arrested for the April 8, 2022 attack on the residence of NCP chief Sharad Pawar. The accused were later granted bail by the sessions court.
A division bench comprised of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela K Gokhale agreed to hear the matter on March 9, 2023.
According to the petition, the BCMG issued a notice to Sadavarte on February 7 advising him of the disciplinary procedures and asking him to appear for a hearing on February 24 to investigate charges against him.
The Committee, directed by Gajanan Chavan and included advocate Kaiser Ansari and advocate Sangram Desai, is inquiring into two complaints made by advocate Sushil Manchekar, former president of the Pimpri Court Bar Association, and one RTI activist Nitin Sanjay Yadav from Baramati.
According to the complaints, Sadavarte allegedly made defamatory statements and “malicious and irresponsible” remarks against Members of Parliament (MPs) Udayanraje Bhosale and Sambhaji Raje Chhatrapati, who are descendants of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, during a debate on TV channel on October 9, 2020.
The other charge was that Sadavarte made “obnoxious” statements during MSRTC staff strikes and knowingly deceived protestors without due diligence, resulting in the suicides of several protestors.
According to a video on social media, his minor daughter was also driving a car without a licence with Sadavarte inside.
Advocate Sadavarte denied the allegations.
In his plea, Sadavarte alleged that a similar complaint was lodged against him by Maratha reservation campaigners, which was dismissed.
Thus, existing proceedings on the same grounds would amount to “double jeopardy”.
Sadavarte further said the complaints were filed to make the complainants’ “political bosses happy,” citing his representation of the petitioner who challenged Maratha reservation, which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.
He went on to say that the Police had previously filed a C-summary (closing) report in the FIR, which is the basis for the complaints filed with the BCMG.
He also claimed that the disciplinary committee’s whole corum was not present for the hearing and that the proceedings were not conducted “in-camera,” as required by Part VII Rule 33 of the BCI Rules.
Given the foregoing, he requested that the notice issued to him and the proceedings commenced against him be quashed and set aside.
