CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court Upholds 3-Year Suspension of Advocate for Harassing Woman Complainant, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

Apex court says scandalous allegations show “obstinate character”; licence renewal barred without court’s permission

Cost to be paid as compensation to complainant within three months; BCI’s disciplinary action fully endorsed

By Our Legal Correspondent:

New Delhi, September 23, 2025:

The Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with a disciplinary order suspending an advocate’s licence for three years after finding him guilty of professional misconduct for harassing a woman complainant and making scandalous allegations against her.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the appeal filed by advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma, upholding the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) disciplinary committee decision and imposing an additional ₹1 lakh cost to be paid to the complainant, Priyanka Bansal, within three months.

The court also directed that Sharma’s licence shall not be renewed without its prior permission.

The Court’s Strong Observations

In its order, the bench noted:

“Having regard to the serious misconduct carried out by the appellant-advocate, who appears to be an obstinate character in making scandalous allegations against the respondent-complainant, we do not want to take any lenient view. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with a cost of ₹1 lakh.”

Justice Kant, during the hearing, remarked to Sharma’s counsel:

“Merely because matrimonial dispute is there… you are blackmailing this girl! You have not withdrawn the matrimonial case…”

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by Priyanka Bansal to the State Bar Council, alleging that Sharma had harassed her and made defamatory, scandalous allegations during the course of a legal dispute.

The Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Committee found Sharma guilty of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers State Bar Councils to punish advocates for “professional or other misconduct.”

The committee ordered:

Suspension from practice for three years.
Removal of his name from the roll of advocates maintained by the State Bar Council for the suspension period.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Sharma challenged the BCI’s order before the Supreme Court, arguing that:

His actions were linked to a matrimonial dispute and should not be treated as professional misconduct.
The disciplinary committee’s findings were excessive and disproportionate.
He had a right to pursue legal remedies in the matrimonial matter.

Supreme Court’s Rejection of Defence

The apex court rejected Sharma’s arguments, holding that:

Harassment and scandalous allegations against a complainant — even in the context of a personal dispute — can amount to professional misconduct if committed by an advocate.
The role of an advocate carries a duty to uphold the dignity of the profession and maintain ethical conduct both inside and outside the courtroom.
The disciplinary committee’s punishment was proportionate given the seriousness of the misconduct.

Additional Penalty and Licence Renewal Condition

In addition to upholding the suspension, the Supreme Court imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on Sharma, to be paid to Bansal as compensation within three months.

The court further ordered that Sharma’s licence shall not be renewed without the Supreme Court’s prior permission, effectively placing a long-term restriction on his ability to resume practice even after the suspension period ends.

Legal Significance

This ruling reinforces several key principles in professional ethics for advocates:

Scope of Professional Misconduct: Misconduct is not limited to actions in court; behaviour outside court that undermines the dignity of the profession can also attract disciplinary action.
Bar Council’s Authority: The BCI and State Bar Councils have wide powers under the Advocates Act to punish misconduct, including suspension and removal from the roll.
Supreme Court Oversight: The apex court can impose additional conditions, such as barring licence renewal without its permission, to ensure accountability.

Ethical Standards for Advocates

The Bar Council of India Rules set out clear expectations for advocates:

Rule 11, Chapter II, Part VI: Advocates must uphold the dignity of the profession and act fairly toward clients and others.
Rule 20, Chapter II, Part VI: Advocates must not stipulate fees or act in ways that exploit vulnerable parties.
General Duty: Advocates must avoid conduct that brings disrepute to the profession.

By making scandalous allegations against a complainant, Sharma breached these ethical standards, justifying the disciplinary action.

Impact on the Legal Profession

Legal experts say the ruling sends a strong message that:

Harassment by advocates will not be tolerated, regardless of whether it occurs in a professional or personal context.
The Supreme Court is willing to impose financial penalties and licence restrictions to deter misconduct.
Victims of harassment within the legal system can expect judicial support when disciplinary bodies act against errant lawyers.

Public and Professional Reaction

The decision has been welcomed by women’s rights groups and legal ethics advocates, who see it as a step toward making the legal profession safer and more accountable.

Some lawyers have noted that the ruling underscores the importance of maintaining decorum and respect in all interactions, especially when dealing with opposing parties or complainants.

Case Details

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Priyanka Bansal
Case Number: C.A. No. 6679/2024
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Order Date: September 23, 2025
Penalty: 3-year suspension, ₹1 lakh cost, licence renewal only with Supreme Court’s permission

Conclusion

By upholding the suspension and adding further penalties, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that advocates must adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct.

The ruling serves as a reminder that the legal profession’s credibility depends on the behaviour of its members — and that misconduct, especially harassment, will be met with firm disciplinary action.

For Manoj Kumar Sharma, the decision means not only a three-year suspension but also a significant financial penalty and a long-term restriction on his ability to practise law.

SC Upholds 3-Year Ban on Lawyer for Harassing Woman