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 miacondud- Unlrulhful 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 post- card 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 Advo- cate who docs so must be guilty of gTOSily unprofessional
cond1:ct. Th•rc can be no doubt in the instant case that the Advo- cate 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. 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 Depart- ment 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. Tn IN malln of lfr, ·~ M AtiDcitcl SW.. C.J. 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 infor- mation, 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. on re om vmg its opinion, the Chief Justice cons- t 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 char- acterised 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 per-
son 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. In lhe m•fttr oJ Mr. 'A' a'I Ad1JOtal1 Sinht1 C. J. In Tlw matur of Mr, 'A' an AJ..c4u SitiM C. J. 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 docu- ments, 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 indi- cate his attitude; "Tribunal : \Vitness: In what rcs1'ects do you find any difference between your
normal signature and this sig- nature (signature on the post-card is shown to him). It '1ppears to be like my signa- ture, but it is not my signature. Signature on Ex. A is not my
signature. Tribunal: Witness : Tribunal: Witness : Tribunal: Witness: Tribunal: Witness: Tribunal : Witness: Tribunal: Witness: In connection with this post-card did you see the Registrar (Sup-
reme 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 any- thing 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. report that the Advocat~ had made those admissions before him. After recording the evidenc<', ural and docu- mentary, 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 state- ment 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. rules of professional . ethics, he has demonstra-
ted 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 profes- sion. 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 pro-
fession. 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 In flie matter of
Mr. 'A' An Advocate Sinha G. J, November 2.