HIKMAT ALI KHAN versus ISHWAR PRASAD ARYA AND ORS.

HIKMAT ALI KHAN versus ISHWAR PRASAD ARYA AND ORS.

The gravity of the misconduct committed by the respondent, involving conviction for assaulting his opponent in the courtroom with a knife under Section 307 IPC, constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude and demonstrates unworthiness to remain in the legal profession. Suspension from practice was inadequate; removal from the roll of advocates was the proper punishment.

Parties
Appellant: Hikmat Ali Khan; Respondent No. 1: Ishwar Prasad Arya; Respondents: Bar Council of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Advocate's Misconduct, Conviction Under IPC, Disciplinary Action, Adequacy of Punishment
Legal Profession Professional Misconduct Advocate's Misconduct Conviction Under IPC Disciplinary Action Adequacy of Punishment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hikmat Ali Khan

Appellant

Ishwar Prasad Arya

Respondent No. 1

Bar Council of India

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council was adequate for an advocate convicted under Section 307 IPC for assaulting his opponent in the courtroom.
  2. 2 Whether punishment for misconduct should be suspension or removal from the roll of advocates.

Ratio Decidendi

The gravity of the misconduct committed by the respondent, involving conviction for assaulting his opponent in the courtroom with a knife under Section 307 IPC, constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude and demonstrates unworthiness to remain in the legal profession. Suspension from practice was inadequate; removal from the roll of advocates was the proper punishment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order dated September 8, 1985 by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeals Nos. 17 and 17-A of 1984 is set aside.
  • Order dated March 25, 1984 by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in D.C. Case No. 40 of 1983 is upheld with modification; instead of suspension for three years, the name of respondent No. 1 shall be removed from the State roll of advocates.