‘File Appeal Before BCI’: Bombay HC To Advocate Sadavarte Against His License Suspension By BCMG

The Bombay High Court has recently directed Gunratan Sadavarte to appeal the decision of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) disciplinary committee to suspend his licence to practice law for two years.

A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale allowed Sadavarte permission to proceed to the High Court if the BCI does not hear his appeal or any interim plea he makes for urgent relief.

“We will not pronounce on anything because it will affect your appellate remedy. It will affect your case. We are not dismissing your petition, we will keep it pending. We are allowing you an opportunity. We are not forcing you to file an appeal and IA in appeal seeking stay. If they do not allow urgent hearing, then you can approach this court”, the bench stated.

The lawyer first went to the High Court to challenge a notice issued by BCMG summoning him to appear on a complaint made by advocate Sushil Manchekar, former president of the Pimpri Court Bar Association.

According to the complaint, Sadavrte wore a black coat with a band to public events, including an agitation by (MSRTC) employees.

But, the High Court refused to stay the proceedings before the disciplinary body on the complaint.

Following the hearings before the disciplinary committee, the committee issued an order on 28 March suspending Sadavarte’s license to practice law for two years.

Advocate Sadavarte challenged this before the Court through the current petition.

The lawyer asked the order to be overturned on the following grounds:

1. That the complaint was judged by a member who Sadavarte said was his opponent in the State bar council election; and
2. That the committee failed to furnish him with the requisite documentation on which they based their decision.

Senior Counsel Darius Khambata and advocate Makarand Bokare both questioned the petition’s maintainability.

They also displayed official records proving that Sadavarte had received the essential documents.

The division bench refused to go into the merits of the matter after noting that the Advocates Act provided for a statutory appeal to the BCI.

According to the High Court, the ‘unconstrained’ appeal to the BCI permits for a full-fledged hearing as if in a trial, with an option to even make a variation to the State Bar Council’s order.

With these findings, the bench directed Sadavarte to raise his current arguments before the BCI, while his plea before the High Court remained pending.