Allahabad High Court rules that State Bar Councils cannot suspend advocates during pendency of disciplinary proceedings; such action violates procedural safeguards under Advocates Act.
Interim Suspension Barred: Allahabad HC Upholds Advocate Rights
The Allahabad High Court has held that a State Bar Council's disciplinary committee cannot suspend an advocate during the pendency of a disciplinary inquiry. In Akhilesh Jaiswal and Another v. Bar Council of India and 2 Others, a Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary ruled that an order under Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is final and executable, not interim, and thus cannot be invoked provisionally.
The Court reasoned that since suspension directly affects an advocate’s right to practice — a livelihood protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution — such drastic action must follow a principled and final determination. The judgment reinforces due process, noting that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted in accordance with natural justice, including the right to be heard before any punitive measure is enforced.
According to this Court, the order of suspension... is a final order and cannot be passed at an interim stage.
This decision sets an important precedent limiting the power of Bar Councils to impose interim penalties. Legal practitioners facing disciplinary notices can invoke this ruling to challenge premature suspensions. Law firms and bar associations should revise internal advisories to align with this affirmation of procedural fairness in professional conduct cases.
Citations
- Akhilesh Jaiswal and Another v. Bar Council of India and 2 Others, W.P. No. XYZ of 2026
