# [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 288

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 288
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-01-01
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, K. Sujiba Rao, J. c. SHAH, Raohu11Ar Dayal, J. R. Mudholkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1962-supp-1-s-c-r-288-2420
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Proft83ional Miaconduct-Adoocate on Record writing
Uttcra wliciting bri•f•-lf guilty of profuaional miacondudUnlrulhful comlucl in court-Defect of character-Puniahment--
Supremt Cou•I Ru lea, 19a0 (aa amended), 0. IV A, r. 2.
Mr. A, an Advocate on Record of this Court, wrote
letters soliciting clients. One of such letters, a post-card was
addres.ed to the Law Minister of Maharashtra and ended as
follows,-
"You might have got an Advocate on Record in this
Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if
you so wish and agree,,.
To the Registrar of this Court he admitted
having
written the post-card, but before the Tribunal stoutly denied
having don' so. The Tribunal found on evidence that the
Advocate had written the post-card. When the matter came
up before the court, the Advocate at lint denied having
written the post-card but on being pressed by the court to
make a true statement admitted that he had writren the postcard and had admitted that before the Registrar.
lldd, that it is against the etiquette of the Bar and its
professional ethics to •olicit briefs from clients and an Advocate who docs so must be guilty of gTOSily unprofessional
cond1:ct.
Th•rc can be no doubt in the instant case that the Advocate concerned had written the post-card soliciting bri.Cs. It
makes no diffcronce whether he did •o in ingorance of this
elementary rule of the profession or in disregard of it, since his
conduct in court showed that he had no regard for truth and,
consequently, he deserved no •ympathy of the court and must
be suspended.
'
(l} S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
289
DISCIPLINARY JuRISDIOTlON: In the matter of
Mr. •A' an Advocate.
The Advocate in person.
H. N. 8anyal, Additional Soliciwr-Gerwral uf
India .and T .•
~f. Sen, for the Attorney-General of
India..
1961. September 25 and November 2. The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINHA, C. J.-The Advocate proceeded against
for professional misconduct was enrolled a.s an
advocate of the Allahabad Hi~h Court in December
1958. In January 1961, he was enrolled as an
advocate of this Court. 'fhe proceedings against
him were taken in accordance with the procedure
laid down in 0. IV-A of the Supreme Court
Rules.
In March this year the Registrar of this Court
received a letter, marked 'Secret', from Secretary
to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of law & Judiciary, to the effect that the
"Advocate on Record" of the Supremr Court had
addressed a post-card, dated January 1, 1961, to
the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra.,
which "constitutes a gross case of advertisement
a.nd solicitation for work." The original post-card
was enclosed with the letter, with the request
that the matter may be placed before the Chief
Justfoe and the other Judges of the Supreme Court
for such action as to their Lordships ma.y seem
"'
fit a.nd proper. The post-card, which was marked
as Ex:. A in the proceedings which followed, is in
these terms :
Mr. •A'.
Advocate on Record.
Supreme Court,
Office a.nd Residence B-9, Model
Town,
Delhi.9.
Dated 19-1-61.
J!SI
·•'"' ""''"' •f
Mr. 'A~ a11 Adl'ttal6
Binlra C. J.
1951
Tn IN malln of
lfr, ·~ M AtiDcitcl
SW.. C.J.
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Dear Sir,
Jai Hind.
Your attention is drawn to the rule 20 of
Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules 1950 (as
amended upto date) to appoint an Advocate
on Record in tho Supreme Court ae according
to this rule 'no advocate other than an
advooate on Record shall appear and plead in
any matter unless he is instructed by an
Advoc9.te on Record.'
You might have got an Advocate on
Rccor<l in this Court but I would like to place
my services at your disposal if yon so wish
and agree.
To
Hoping to be favoured.
Thanks,
Y oura sincerely,
Sd: •A'
The Minister of Law,
Government of Maharashtra,
Bombay.''
When the matter was placed before the Chief
Justice, he directed the Registrar informally to
enquire from the Advocate conoerned whether the
post-card in question had been written by him and
bore

## Text

28S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
19111
n, Jiyajtnao
Collon Id ills Ltd.
v.
cannot, therefore, accept either of the two grounds
urged by Mr. Viswanatha S&stri challenging th(•
vires of the Act.
Stott of Madhμ
PtaJule
MudholkM J.
111111
The appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs.
App,·al diami .. ed.
IN THE MATTER OF MR. 'A' AN ADVOCATE
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUJIBA RAO, J. c. SHAH,
RAOHU11AR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Proft83ional Miaconduct-Adoocate on Record writing
Uttcra wliciting bri•f•-lf guilty of profuaional miacondudUnlrulhful comlucl in court-Defect of character-Puniahment--
Supremt Cou•I Ru lea, 19a0 (aa amended), 0. IV A, r. 2.
Mr. A, an Advocate on Record of this Court, wrote
letters soliciting clients. One of such letters, a post-card was
addres.ed to the Law Minister of Maharashtra and ended as
follows,-
"You might have got an Advocate on Record in this
Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if
you so wish and agree,,.
To the Registrar of this Court he admitted
having
written the post-card, but before the Tribunal stoutly denied
having don' so. The Tribunal found on evidence that the
Advocate had written the post-card. When the matter came
up before the court, the Advocate at lint denied having
written the post-card but on being pressed by the court to
make a true statement admitted that he had writren the postcard and had admitted that before the Registrar.
lldd, that it is against the etiquette of the Bar and its
professional ethics to •olicit briefs from clients and an Advocate who docs so must be guilty of gTOSily unprofessional
cond1:ct.
Th•rc can be no doubt in the instant case that the Advocate concerned had written the post-card soliciting bri.Cs. It
makes no diffcronce whether he did •o in ingorance of this
elementary rule of the profession or in disregard of it, since his
conduct in court showed that he had no regard for truth and,
consequently, he deserved no •ympathy of the court and must
be suspended.
'
(l} S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
289
DISCIPLINARY JuRISDIOTlON: In the matter of
Mr. •A' an Advocate.
The Advocate in person.
H. N. 8anyal, Additional Soliciwr-Gerwral uf
India .and T .•
~f. Sen, for the Attorney-General of
India..
1961. September 25 and November 2. The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINHA, C. J.-The Advocate proceeded against
for professional misconduct was enrolled a.s an
advocate of the Allahabad Hi~h Court in December
1958. In January 1961, he was enrolled as an
advocate of this Court. 'fhe proceedings against
him were taken in accordance with the procedure
laid down in 0. IV-A of the Supreme Court
Rules.
In March this year the Registrar of this Court
received a letter, marked 'Secret', from Secretary
to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of law & Judiciary, to the effect that the
"Advocate on Record" of the Supremr Court had
addressed a post-card, dated January 1, 1961, to
the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra.,
which "constitutes a gross case of advertisement
a.nd solicitation for work." The original post-card
was enclosed with the letter, with the request
that the matter may be placed before the Chief
Justfoe and the other Judges of the Supreme Court
for such action as to their Lordships ma.y seem
"'
fit a.nd proper. The post-card, which was marked
as Ex:. A in the proceedings which followed, is in
these terms :
Mr. •A'.
Advocate on Record.
Supreme Court,
Office a.nd Residence B-9, Model
Town,
Delhi.9.
Dated 19-1-61.
J!SI
·•'"' ""''"' •f
Mr. 'A~ a11 Adl'ttal6
Binlra C. J.
1951
Tn IN malln of
lfr, ·~ M AtiDcitcl
SW.. C.J.
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Dear Sir,
Jai Hind.
Your attention is drawn to the rule 20 of
Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules 1950 (as
amended upto date) to appoint an Advocate
on Record in tho Supreme Court ae according
to this rule 'no advocate other than an
advooate on Record shall appear and plead in
any matter unless he is instructed by an
Advoc9.te on Record.'
You might have got an Advocate on
Rccor<l in this Court but I would like to place
my services at your disposal if yon so wish
and agree.
To
Hoping to be favoured.
Thanks,
Y oura sincerely,
Sd: •A'
The Minister of Law,
Government of Maharashtra,
Bombay.''
When the matter was placed before the Chief
Justice, he directed the Registrar informally to
enquire from the Advocate conoerned whether the
post-card in question had been written by him and
bore his rubber stamp and signature. The Registrar
called him, and in answer to his queries, the
Advocate admitted that the post-card bore his
,
rubber stamp and signature and that it bad in fact
..
been despatched by him.
He al80 informed the
Registrar that he had addressed similar post-cards
to other parties. The Advocate added that he did
not realise that in addressing those post-cards he
was committing any wrong or breach of etiquette.
The Chief Justice, on receiving the aforesaid information, placed the matter before a Committee of
three Judges of this Court, under r. 2, 0. IV-A. The
Committee considered the matter referred to it, and
l~
-j
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 291
on re om vmg its opinion, the Chief Justice const i t11ted a Tribunal of three members of the Bar,
Shri Bishan Narain and Shri A. Ranganadham
Chetty, Senior Advocate1, and Shri I. N. Shroft',
Advocate, with Shri Bish1m Narain as its President,
for holding the necessary enquiry into the alleged
conduct of the Advocate proceeded against. In
reply to the notice served on the Advocate, he
chose to behave in a
most irresponsible
way
by alleging that the complaint in
question
by the Government of Maharashtra "is false,
mala fide and misconceived".
He denied that he
had written the letter in question, which he characterised as "the work of any miscreant". He
added further that even if it were provPd that the
letter in question had been written by him, a mere
perusal of it would show that there was nothing
unprofessional or otherwise objectionable in it,
and he added further that "certainly it is not
solicitation of work if one inquires from any person whether it requires or wishes and agrees to
have the services of another advocate". The
Advocate w11s examined as witness on his own
behalf 11nd the· Tribunal put the po~t-card to him.
The following
questions by the Tribunal and
answers bv the Advocate will show the determined
way in which he denied what he had admitted to
the Registrar.
·
"Tribunal : This post-card which has been
brought to the notice of the
Court purports to be from you.
Is this the post-card which you
have written ?
Witness : No.
Tribunal : Has it not gone from your office ?
Witness : No. There is no doubt it bears
the seal of my office, but it has
not been affixed by me.
1961
In lhe m•fttr oJ
Mr. 'A' a'I Ad1JOtal1
Sinht1 C. J.
1961
In Tlw matur of
Mr, 'A' an AJ..c4u
SitiM C. J.
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
Tribune.I : You sa.y it docs bear your name
and that the rubber stamp which
appears is of your office but that
it has not bocn affixed by you.
\Vitness : Yes.
Tribunal : IR the hand-writing which one
finds on this Post-card your
hand-writing ?
WitneRB : No.
Tribunal : And the signature which is at
the foot of the letter, you say,
is not your signature.
Witness : No, it is not. mine"
The Tribunal pursued tho matter further to find
out as to how the post-card had purported to
emanat'3 from his office, and then certain documents, marked Exs. B to E, were brought on the
record with a view to comparing his admitted
hand-writing in those documents with that of
the
post-card
in
question.
The
Tribunal
also ma.de him write a letter in the verv terms in
which the postcard is written, with a viev/ to making
a comparison of the handwriting on the post-card
with his admitted writing in identical terms, given
by him in Court. The Tribunal then confronted
him with his admissions made to the Registrar, as
a{oresaid, before the proceedings started. Thti
following questions and answers will further indicate his attitude;
"Tribunal :
\Vitness:
In what rcs1'ects do you find
any difference between your
normal signature and this signature (signature on the post-card
is shown to him).
It '1ppears to be like my signature, but it is not my signature.
Signature on Ex. A is not my
signature.
( 1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
293
Tribunal:
Witness :
Tribunal:
Witness :
Tribunal:
Witness:
Tribunal:
Witness:
Tribunal :
Witness:
Tribunal:
Witness:
In connection with this post-card
did you see the Registrar (Supreme Court) ?
Yes, he called me.
When? Do you know the date?
I <lo not remember.
Did you say anything to him ?
I did not make any statement.
He showed me the post·card. I
told him, as I said here, that I
had not written it; somebody
else might have written it.
Did you admit before the Rei;is·
trar that this letter was writt,m
by you?
I did not admit it, but he told
me that if I admitted it, the
matter might be hushed up.
Did you say to the Registrar
that you did not realise that in
so doing you were doing anything wrong ?
No.
I did not say anything.
Do you want to produce any
evidence ?
No, because I have not done
anything; so, I do not want to
produce any evidence. Even if it
is found that I have written the
post-card, even then on merits,
there is nothing in this Case".
Finding that the Advocate was adamant in his
denial th<it he wrote the post-card or that he had
made any statement before the Registrar, the
Tribunal called the Registrar as a witness and
xamined him on solemn affirmation. The Registrar
ave his evidence and fully supported his previous
1$61
In the matter of·
.Y'r. 'A' an Advocate
Siuha C. J.
J9aJ
In tht nl411V r'.f
JI,, •A' on Adu1cott
Sin!co <:. J.
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
'
report that the Advocat~ had made those admissions
before him.
After recording the evidenc<', ural and documentary, the Tribnna 1 made the report that in spite
of stout denial by the Advocate concerned, the
Tribunal was satisfied that the post· card in quest.ion
had been written by him.
The Tribunal was also
of opinion that the Advocate did not realis(• that in
writing the post-card he \\'a,; committing a breach of
profc88ional etiquette and of professional ethics.
It also remarked that it was unfortunate that the
Advocate chose to deny the authorship of the
post-card. The findings of the Tribunal, along with
the evidence and record of the case, have been
placed before us.
The Advocate, on notice, has
appeared before us and we have heard him.
Before
us also the Advocate first took up the same attitude
as ho had adopted before the Tribunal, but on
being preBBed by the Court to make a true statement as to whether be had written the post-co.rd
and had admitted before the Registrar that he had
done so, he answered in the affirmative.
It is dear beyond any shadow of doubt that
the Advocato had addressed the letter aforesaid to
the Government of Maharashtra, soliciting their
briefs; that he had admitted to the Registrar ot' this
Court that he had written tho post-card and other
such post-can.ls to other parties, and that ho did so
in utter disregard of his position as an Advocate of
this Court. It is equally clear that his denial of
having written the post-card, and of having ~ub
scqucntly admitted it
to the
Registrar, was
again
in utter disregard of truth.
He hll.B,
in this Court, condemned himself as a liar and
as one who is either ignorant of the elementary
rules of professional ethics or has no regiird for
them.
In our opinion, the Advocate he.a mlsl'hoscn
his profeBBion.
A ppareu tly he is
11. man of very
weak moral fibre. If he is ignorant of the elementary
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
295
rules of professional . ethics, he has demonstrated the inadequacy of his training and education
befitting a member of the profession of law. If he
knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief
and even then wrote the post-ca.rd in question, he
is a very unworthy mem her of the learned profession. In any view of the matter, he does not
appear to be possessed of a high moral calibre,
which is essential for a member of the legal profession. If anything, by adopting the attitude of
denial which has been demonstrated to be falEe in
the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal,
he has not deserved well of the Court even in the
matter of amount of punishment to be meted to
him for his proved misconduct. In our opinion, he
fully deserves the punishment of suspension from
practice for five years. This punishment will give
him enough time and opportunity for deciding for
himself, after deep deliberation and introspection,
whether he is fit to continue to be a member of the
legal profession. In our view he is not. Let him
learn that a lawyer must never be a liar.
RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH,
RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Jail
Adm~n~stration-Separation of prisoners-Oellular
confi.nemen,,_V f!l•d_•ty o(-Rute permitting separate confinement
by "¥ht-Oo?"titutwnality of-Prisons Act, 1894(9 of 1894),
Pun;ab Jail Manual Paras, 571,575-0onstit,,1.:on of India,
Art. 14.
ln May, 1959, the appellant was sent to Arnbala Jail as
an undcrtrial prisoner.
9n account of certain jail offences
alleg7d to have bee~ committed by him the Superintendent
of Jar! segregated hun from other prisoners and kept him in a
separate cell. He was convicted in June, 1960. Thoogh he was
1961
In flie matter of
Mr. 'A' An Advocate
Sinha G. J,
1961
November 2.