The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed the order of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh suspending the enrolment of two advocates till further orders, holding that an indefinite suspension without specifying its duration is unsustainable in law.
The court also held that suspension from practice under Section 35(3)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is a final order and “could not be passed at an interim stage by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.”
A division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order on a writ petition filed by Akhilesh Jaiswal, President of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Lucknow, and Avnish Dixit, Secretary of the association.
The petitioners had challenged the order dated September 26, 2026, passed by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, suspending their enrolment till further orders and directing that they should not appear as counsel in any court of law.
The High Court examined the disciplinary committee’s order and noted that the petitioners had sought a copy of the complaint against them.
Further, the court also observed that the said order did not disclose whether the complaint had been supplied, had already been furnished to them, or whether their request was otherwise not maintainable.
The court further pointed out that the disciplinary committee had fixed the next hearing for October 11, 2026, while simultaneously suspending the petitioners’ licences till further orders.
The bench observed that this course of action “appears inconsistent with the law.”
It examined Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and noted that after affording an opportunity of hearing, the Bar Council could pass only the orders specified under the provision, i.e., dismiss the complaint, reprimand the advocate, suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit, or remove the advocate’s name from the State roll.
The court particularly took exception to the fact that the suspension imposed on the petitioners was for an indefinite period.
“Firstly, the suspension being for an indefinite period, without specifying its duration, appears to be unsustainable in law,” the bench held.
It further observed that once the Disciplinary Committee had passed an order of suspension, no further adverse action could be taken against the petitioners without issuing a fresh notice and giving them an opportunity of hearing.
The court said that the suspension contemplated under Section 35(3)(c) of the Advocates Act is a final order and cannot be used as an interim measure during disciplinary proceedings.
The High Court also relied upon a 2025 judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Jim vs. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 14556.
In the aforesaid case, the Madras High Court had held that the Bar Council does not have the power to place an advocate under interim suspension pending a disciplinary inquiry.
It had further held that the Advocates Act does not confer such power on the Bar Council and that courts cannot enlarge the powers of a statutory body through interpretation when such power has not been specifically conferred.
The Madras High Court had also held that where Section 35 requires issuance of notice, framing of charges, due trial and hearing before an order of suspension, an ex parte interim order cannot be sustained.
Read also: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge to Section 67 Encroachment Proceedings
It concluded that the Bar Council’s functions under the Act could not be interpreted as conferring powers beyond those specifically granted by the statute.
By applying the above principles, the Allahabad High Court held that the procedure adopted by the authorities in the present case was not in consonance with the Advocates Act, 1961, or the law laid down by the Madras High Court.
Accordingly, the court quashed the September 26, 2026, order and asked the petitioners to appear before the disciplinary authority on October 11, 2026.
The High Court further directed that if any documents required by the petitioners had not yet been supplied, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh should provide them in accordance with law if the petitioners made a request within 24 hours.
At the same time, the court clarified that the petitioners should not make any unnecessary request for adjournment.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case: Akhilesh Jaiswal and Another vs Bar Council of India Thru. Chairman Rouse Avenue New Delhi and 2 Others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 10924 of 2026
Date of Order: 01.10.2026
Status: Disposed of
