1.Bar Council Of Maharashtra vs M. V. Dabholkar Etc. 976 AIR 242, 1976 SCR (2) 48

Bar Council vs Dabholkar - 1976 SCR

Parties: Bar Council of India (Appellant) G.N. Dabholkar (Respondent)

Facts:
G.N. Dabholkar was a practicing advocate in the Bombay High Court. He was charged with professional misconduct by the Bar Council of Maharashtra, who found him guilty and imposed a punishment of removal of his name from the rolls of the advocates. He filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the findings of the Bar Council. The writ was allowed by the Bombay High Court, which held that the proceedings before the Bar Council were vitiated as the Bar Council did not follow the principles of natural justice. The Bar Council of India then approached the Supreme Court of India in appeal.

Issues in dispute:

1. Whether the proceedings before the Bar Council of Maharashtra were vitiated as the Bar Council did not follow the principles of natural justice?
2. Whether the punishment imposed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra was valid?

Order:
The Supreme Court of India held that the proceedings before the Bar Council of Maharashtra were vitiated as the Bar Council did not follow the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the principles of natural justice are fundamental to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, and the Bar Council is a quasi-judicial body. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the Bar Council did not give the respondent a fair opportunity to be heard, and the punishment imposed was thus not valid. The appeal was dismissed and the writ of the Bombay High Court was upheld.

The Court laid down the following principles of natural justice that must be followed by all quasi-judicial bodies:

1. The right to a fair hearing
2. The right to be heard
3. The right to examine witnesses
4. The right to cross-examine witnesses
5. The right to be represented by a legal practitioner.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice must be followed by all quasi-judicial bodies, including the Bar Councils, and the punishment imposed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra was not valid as the principles of natural justice were violated. The Court upheld the writ of the Bombay High Court, which allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the findings of the Bar Council.