Sometimes ministers, industrialists, politicians, or any other high profile people require different types of security. In India, all the security procedures of these high-profile people are monitored by National Security Guards (NSG), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Crime Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and other police officers. 

The term security refers to a condition of not being threatened, especially physically, psychologically, emotionally, or financially. In the legal field, it is recognised as freedom from apprehension. Security coverings are issued in India to persons who are known to pose a high-risk danger. Various levels of protection are granted to various persons based on information provided by the intelligence branch.

Bluebook and Yellow book

The Bluebook contains the guidelines relating to the security of the President, Vice-President, and Prime Minister. Whereas, the Yellow book contains the security guidelines for other VIPs and political persons.

The Home Ministry determines the degree of security needed with the aid of several intelligence agencies. Similarly, the State government also has its own criteria for providing security.  

Apparently, in the list of Central government, there are 230 individuals who are being provided by security. This list of both central government and the state government varies in number depending upon the emergency. 

Types of securities in India 

  1. X security

In the X security category, there are a total of 2-3 police officers. Most of the people in India have X and Y categories of security. 

  1. Y security

In the Y security category, there are a total of 8 security personnel out of which 1-2 are commandos and police personnel. Moreover, on a rotational basis, 2 personnel security officers are always present with the person.  

  1. Y+ security

In the Y+ security category, there are a total of 11 security personnel are involved out of which 1-2 are National Security Guard (NSG) commandos. Moreover, on a rotational basis, 2 personnel security officers are always present with the person. This level of security is mainly on the Crime Reserve Police Force (CRPF). 

  1. Z security

In the Z security category, there are a total of 22 security personnel are involved out of which 4-5 are National Security Guard (NSG) commando and police personnel. This security is provided by Delhi police, Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), and Crime Reserve Police Force (CRPF). 

In both the Z and Z+ security category an escort vehicle is included. The government also has to pay a cost for providing this security like the cost of Z security is almost 15-16 lakhs per month and this amount is paid by the government from the taxpayer’s money. 

  1. Z+ security

In the Z+ security category, there are a total of 55 security personnel look after all the arrangements out of which 10 are National Security Guard (NSG) commando. According to the March 2021 Central list, almost 40 VIPs are being provided Z+ security. The information related to this security is also a classified information, so publicly the list is not available but according to speculation the people in this list are Rahul Gandhi, Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh, Yogi Adityanath, Priyanka Gandhi, Ex-Prime Ministers, judges of Supreme Court, Judges of High Courts, Army heads, prominent personalities, and other important high profile ministers of the country are provided security. 

The government also has to pay a cost for providing this security like the cost of Z+ security is almost 20 lakhs per month and this amount is paid by the government from the taxpayer’s money. However, there are various individuals who pay for their own security such as Mukesh Ambani, he himself pays for the different levels o security he has which is why when the government provided Y category security to Kangana Ranaut, the public asked the reason behind it. It was further said that a well-established actor like her can reimburse her security cost and there should be no unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer’s money.  

  1. SPG security 

Until 1981, the security of India’s Prime Minister was under the Delhi Police and the Special Task Force (STF) of the Intelligence Bureau. But in 1984, after the assassination of Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi a review committee was set up for strengthening the security by the Home Minister. This committee was known as the “Birbal Nath Committee”. Under the recommendation of this committee, the Special Protection Group (SPG) was formed. 

SPG refers to the Special Protection Group security which is an elite group that provides solely to the country’s Prime Minister. In the budget of 2020, a total of 592 crores were allocated for Special Protection Group (SPG) security. Out of which 145 crores would be spent on modern security equipmemts and infrastructure. Under the SPG category, the number of individuals who provide security is classified information. In this level of security, the Special Protection Group (SPG) and National Security Guards (NSG) provide security cover to the Prime Minister. 


Hence, there are 6 different types of VIP security in India. X, Y, Y+, Z, Z+, and SPG. Ministry of Home affairs with the help of different intelligence agencies decides what level of security is to be extended to a particular person. And a similar system is observed by the state government.


This article is written by Sneha Mahawar from Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies, Bangalore. The article discusses the concept of  VIP securities in India along with who can avail such securities, the functions and essentials of each security category, and its management. 


“Law is not law if it violates the principles of eternal justice”

-Lydia Maria Child

What exactly is contempt? Contempt is the state of being hated or disgraced in its most basic form. Contempt of court is defined as any conduct that shows disrespect or disregard for the authority and administration of the law. Over the last few years, the law of contempt has increasingly evolved. Judges have changed and adjusted the contempt jurisdiction to address the difficulties they meet.Most studies of contempt law are based on the notion that we must adapt to the contempt jurisdiction as it exists, and that a historical understanding of how the contempt jurisdiction evolved is unnecessary. The assumption in most studies of contempt law is that we must adapt to the contempt jurisdiction as we find it, and that a historical understanding of how the contempt jurisdiction evolved is superfluous. Nonetheless, there is much to be learned from the history of the law of contempt.

I attempted to examine and evaluate the origins of the notion of contempt of court in my research work. This article will discuss all aspects of this notion, including constitutional requirements and legal interpretations. This report also sheds insight on a number of important court decisions involving the topic of contempt of court. With the highest respect for the judicial systemthis research paper will focus on a thorough examination of the notion of contempt of court. The primary goal of this notion is to safeguard the administration of justice. In both criminal and civil situations, justice must be served.

Keywords: Contempt of Court, Administrative of Justice, Judiciary



As stated in the case of Brown vs. Allen, this famous comment was made by an American Attorney Judge of the United States Supreme Court.[1] The question here is whether a layperson who is not a member of the bench can ever make a proclamation that calls into doubt the reliability of any court, with the exception of the Supreme Court of the United States.[2]In our modern period, everyone who is found in contempt of court faces humiliation behind prison. When we look at the unclear wording defining the scope of contempt law, we see this difficult position.In layman's terms, contempt is any purposeful disobedience to or disregard for a court order, as well as any misconduct in court.[3]

As we all know, the court has its own autonomous position and is one of the pillars of democracy, instilling in citizens a sense of faith in the omnipotence of justice by punishing the guilty. As a result, anyone who attempts to obstruct any court system or process is considered a criminal in the eyes of the law.



India's constitutional design is based on the rule of law scheme. This means that the law has precedence over a person's individual and collective responsibilities. The idea behind contempt of court is that citizens are obligated to obey the court's decision, which is intended to aid in the administration of justice. In this sense, we can state that the primary motivation for contempt of court is to secure justice.

There are two types of Contempt of Court:

·         Civil contempt

·         Criminal contempt

Civil contempt of court[4] is defined as "willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court[5]," whereas criminal contempt of court is defined as "the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

(i) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or

(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding,

(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”


Punishment for contempt of court has a long history dating back to the 13th century. It was intended to protect the fairness process' integrity by barring unjustified interference in the administration of justice, whether directed at judges, witnesses, or others. This contempt of court authority was formed by kings[6], who felt it was a logical extension of their settling function.The law imbues a person with discipline while adjudicating, preserving the dignity of the administration of justice.

As a result, contempt of court is a crime whenever a person disobeys or disregards the court's orders, and there was even mention of a monetary penalty for contempt of court at some instances.


Before I go into the country's foreign viewpoints on contempt of court, let me first explain their legal standing under international law[7]. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR),[8] and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHR) they all provide safeguards for both freedom of expression and the administration of justice.

The approach to contempt of court in common law jurisdictions is by sub judice rule, which means that a person is banned from interfering with the proceedings while they are underway and through all stages of appeal until the case is solved between the parties. The Contempt of Court Act, 1981 governs this system in the United Kingdom, and it is regarded as a serious criminal offence[9].This Act was enacted in reaction to the European Court of Human Rights' decision in the case of Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, in which an injunction was granted to prevent the newspaper from commenting because it might jeopardize current settlement discussions. There is no comparable contempt of court statute in Australia or New Zealand, where the English common law test still applies, posing a lower danger on a person. The High Court of Austria indicated something different in Glennon, saying that contempt of court is based entirely or substantially on proof that the publication has a definite intention to interfere in practical reality. When it comes to the administration of justice In the United States, there is a distinction in the courts' ability to punish for contempt. The number of books that can be published is quite limited.


The term "contempt of court" is derived from English law. When the British ruled India, the three High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras had the inherent right to punish for contempt under the Indian High Courts Act of 1861.

The Contempt of Court Act of 1926 was the country's first statute dealing with the law of contempt.Section 2 explains that all High Courts have the authority to punish for contempt of them, and that the High Court has the authority to punish for contempt of courts subordinate to it. This Act covered all of British India, including the princely states of Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Rajasthan, Travancore-Cochin, Saurashtra, and Pepsu, as well as the princely states of Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Rajasthan, Travancore-Cochin, Saurashtra, and Pepsu and they were having their own corresponding state enactments on contempt[10].

Following that, the Act of 1926 was repealed and replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act of 1952, which defined the jurisdiction of the High Court, which was not included by the earlier Act of 1926. Chief Courts were created as a result of this law. It also has the authority to try and punish those who disobey it.

After a protracted struggle for independence, a Bill was tabled in the LokSabha on April 1, 1960, to modify the current statute of contempt of court, which was vague, imprecise, and unsatisfactory. In 1961, the government formed a special committee called the Sanyal Committee, which was led by Shri H.N. Sanyal and charged with scrutinizing the law and studying the bill (Additional Solicitor General of India).In 1963, the committee issued a report that described the restricted powers of some courts in punishing for contempt of court, mentioning criminal contempt and recommended the "process (to be followed) in case of criminal contempt of court." After extensive consultation with all states and union territories, the Committee's suggestion was accepted by the government.The bill was then investigated by the Houses of Parliament's Joint Select Committee, which recommended a few revisions to the bill, including a revision to the statute of limitations for going to prison for the purpose of contempt proceedings The 1971 Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) was enacted to replace the previous one. Act passed in 1952. The Act of 1952 divides judicial contempt into two categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt.


·         Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. Vs. Dharam Godha and Ors (2004)[11]

In this case, the Supreme Court looked at Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines civil contempt. It was determined that the term "Willful" means an act or omission that is done voluntarily, intentionally, and with the specific intent to do something the law prohibits, that is, with the bad intention to disobey or deregulate the law and all these case must be adjudicated according to the facts and circumstances of each case.

·         D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal (1988)[12]

The case concerned the intrusion of a third party who brought certain information to the court's attention, which was considered contempt of court. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that anyone who files a contempt petition with the court would be held in contempt. The court will provide the information, but only if you request it.

Last but not least, when it comes to the administration of justice, there are only two parties involved: the court and the contemnor.

Legal Remembrancer vs. Motilal Ghose, a case heard in the Calcutta High Court, and Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Ajit Prasad, a case heard in the Allahabad High Court, are two previous cases that dealt with the problem of contempt of court. In both of these cases, the difference between civil and criminal contempt was examined.In Vijay Pratap Singh Vs. Ajit Prasad[13], it was stated that in civil contempt cases, the goal is to make right the wrongs committed by the person in contempt of court, and to do so, sanctions are imposed, whereas in criminal contempt cases, the goal is to punish the person who has dishonored the court by his actions and has proven to be a hindrance in the justice.



Criticism is a significant component of the world's modernistic societies, particularly in those regions of the world where citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression and when the judiciary is not the sole source of this right. Justice, on the other hand, should be kept out of that realm.It is stated in Section 5 of the Act that legitimate criticism of judicial acts is not contempt, and that a person will not be held liable for making any fair and reasonable comment on the merits of a matter that has already been heard and determined. The only thing that people need be concerned about is that the criticism that is published is fair and does not contain malicious charges, as this would be the citizens' power of criticism, which has been abused. Criticizing the court, judicial acts, or judges, in its purest form, will only result in more of the same. There is room for improvement on the inside, and it will be critical for the public's investment of faith and conviction in the courts.



The judiciary and judicial processes serve the public interest by working toward the objective of providing fair and equitable justice to all, which shows a larger picture of our society's well-being and soundness. Being a stumbling block in that process not only puts the suspect in danger, but it also takes away someone's chance at justice.Criticizing the judiciary on its merits and in good faith, on the other hand, is an imperative requirement that should be supported and encouraged since it permits citizens who are not part of the judicial apparatus to keep a check on the judiciary's exercise of power. It is not something to turn a blind eye to and believe anything that comes out of any source,be it the judiciary as well is not something which is expected out of vigilant citizens. As law-abiding citizens, it is our responsibility to assist in maintaining the dignity of the courts, while also reserving our rights to reasonable criticism of the judiciary as needed.


[1]1MANU/USSC/0086/1953 344 U.S. 443(1953).

[2]1MANU/USSC/0086/1953 344 U.S. 443(1953).

[3]Black’s law Dictionary.

[4] Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

[5]  Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

[6]SirG.D. Baneiji, 'The Hindu Law of Maniage and Stridhana', Tagoie Law Lecliiies.p. 3.

[7]The Historical Perspective Of The Contempt Of Courts In India And Abroad, Shodhganga


[9]Vepa P. Sathi. G.C.V. Subba Rao's, Commentary on Contempt of Courts Act. 1971'. 1999. at p.1.

[10]9 P.V. Kane, 'History of Dliainiasliastia/ Vol. K 196S, p.517


[12]1988(12) ACR541 (SC)


Image Source



Science and Technology are widening their scope in almost every sphere of our life. Law is not untouched from it. They have well established their foot in the court of law. The overgrowing complexities in the Criminal Judicial system have further exaggerated its need in the Law as it increases the efficiency of investigation and access to justice. Narco Analysis is one of them used when the perpetrator/accused refuses to provide reliable information required for an investigation. The term “Narco” has been derived from the Greek word “narkc” which means “Anaesthesia” or “Torpor”. In layman’s language, Narco Analysis is a process in which a drug (Sodium Pentothal also known as Truth Serum) is injected into a body which induces a hypnotic state and the person’s imagination is neutralized, ultimately leading it to the outcome of true information. The concept again came into Limelight in October 2020 after the brutal Hathras Rape case.

Undoubtedly, it is a great technique for getting the truth and accessing justice. At the same time, many believe that it is violative of Constitutional Norms and several human rights. It has been found that Narco analysis is contradictory with the Right against self-incrimination provided in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.   

A Brief Historical Background of Narco Analysis

Hoorsely coined the term Narco Analysis. It was in the year 1922, the concept of Narco Analysis came into the limelight when Robert House (obstetrician) used a drug named scopolamine on two prisoners. In India, it was in the year 2002 when the first Narco analysis was done in the Forensic Science laboratory in Bangalore. It was carried on by an individual associated with the Godhara carnage case. Since then its validity has always been debated. Some believe that it is a great tool to carry on investigation and access justice. On the other hand, some people believe that these kinds of practices find no space in any democratic setup.

Due to its wide criticism and contradictions with Human Rights, this technique is used in very extreme circumstances. In most cases, the consent of an individual on which the test is going to be performed is taken.

Constitution and Narco Analysis

This is a great technique to extract a large amount of valuable information but at the same time, it has been criticized by many intellectuals who found it violative of constitutional and Human rights. There are different opinions regarding its admissibility on the court. Some believe that it can be admissible by the virtue of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whereas others opined that a confession by the semi-conscious person is not at all admissible in the Court of Law. Indian Courts have limited the admissibility of Narco analysis. It is only after the court is satisfied with the given circumstances on which the test was done, the court admits it.

Our Constitution provides every accused Right to silence (Right against self-incrimination, Article 20(3)) i.e. No Person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. There is a Latin phrase, “Nemo tenetur selpsum accusare” which means, “No one is bound to incriminate himself.”  This maxim reflects the policy underlying the privilege against self-incrimination. [1] Supreme Court in Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani[2] interpreted the provision of Article 20(3) and held that no one is entitled to extract any information accused by using any kind of force either during the trial or during an investigation. Apex Court in another landmark case of M.P. Sharma[3] observed that the protection granted under Article 20(3) is not only limited Courtroom but also extended outside it. Section 161(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 says, “…….shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

The situation is quite identical in the International arena too. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Landmark Case i.e. Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr[4]  

Facts of the case: Several Criminal Appeal were clubbed together by Hon’ble Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition. There was one common element in all the appeals i.e. Accused, suspects, and witnesses were subjected to tests like Narco, Polygraph, etc. without their consent. They challenged those tests in the Court of Law. The defendants took a defense that these tests are valuable for extracting information and carrying on an investigation. They further contended that no bodily harm was done during the process and these types of tests will increase the conviction rate and secure justice.

 Main Issues involved: Whether these techniques are violative of Personal Liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

Whether carrying on these tests without consent is contradictory with the Right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3))?

Held: The three Judges' bench comprising of Chief Justice K.G. Balkrishnan, Justice RV Raveendran, and Justice JM Panchal held that these techniques are violative of the Right against Self-incrimination if the consent was not taken. The Court also said that forcible and coercive use of these techniques is a clear violation of one’s mental privacy and amounts to cruelty. The court also held that coercing an individual to undergo such practice is also restraint in the standard of “Substantive Due Process”. The main purpose of Article 20(3) is to ensure that the statements made by the accused are reliable and are made voluntarily. The court also showed its concern that these types of techniques can also encourage acts like ‘Media Trial’.  

Conclusively, the Court held that no individual should forcefully be subjected to these kinds of techniques either during investigation or trial. If done so it is a clear violation of Personal Liberty and Right against Self-incrimination.


The usage of techniques like the Narco Test is highly debatable. There are several countries where these kinds of techniques are completely prohibited. Involuntary use of these techniques is a clear violation of Fundamental Rights and several Human Rights. In India, we don’t have any specific legislation or provisions dealing with the usage of the Narco test but thanks to the Judiciary who have tried to balance between individual rights and the usage of Narco Tests.

AUTHORED BY: ISHITA SHANKER & DHEERAJ DIWAKAR, 1st Year Law Student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University.

[2] Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani, 1978 SCR (3) 608

[3] M. P. Sharma And Others vs Satish Chandra, 1954 SCR 1077

[4] Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr, A.I.R 2010 S.C. 1974

Image Source



DECIDED ON- 18.03.1982

CITATION: 1993 AIR 1608, SCR (2) 488









Professional Misconduct by Advocates in India: A Critical Analysis By:  Trishala Singh[1]


1.      D.S. Dalal was a practicing Advocate in Delhi.

2.      The Bar Council of India by its order dated October 24, 1981, removed his name from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar council of Delhi & the sanad granted to him has been withdrawn.

3.      The Appeal under section 30 of the Advocates Act, against the order of the Bar Council of India.

4.      The State Bank of India lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi on September, 4, 1998.

5.      The complaint that the appellant along with two other advocates was practicing under the name & style of “Ms. Singh and company”[2]

6.      A firm of Advocates & Solicitors having their office at 2610 Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

7.      It was alleged that the advocates were duly engaged by the Asaf Ali Road Branch of the State Bank of India to file a recovery suit against M/S Delhi Flooring (pvt) Ltd. For the recovery of Rs. 6, 12, 16,410.[3]

8.      “SINGH &COMPANY” the firm at that time was represented by MR. D.S. Dalal, Ms. V. Singh & Mr. B. Singh, Advocates who were the partners of the said firm and ere conducting cases for & on behalf of the firm.[4]

9.      It is the case of the complaint that in the year, 1995. 

10.  The file relating to the case which was to be filed against Ms. Delhi Flooring (pvt) Ltd.

11.  The file relating to the case original & valuable documents was handed over to the firm by the compliant. The firm submitted the professional fees & other miscellaneous charges.

12.  An amount of Rs. 11,495 was paid to the firm on November 15.1995.

13.  Till December 19, 1995 the firm did not inform the bank as to whether the suit was filed and if so what was the stage of the proceedings.

14.  The bank wrote a letter on December 5 1995 to the firm asking it to send a copy of the paint before December, 8, 1995. For signature and verification filing which the bank would be compelled to withdraw the case from the firm.

15.  At that stage Mr. B. Singh, Advocate in his letter December, 15, 1995 informed the bank the suit had been filed on Dec, 15 in the high Court Of Delhi. Thereafter the bank appears to have received no communication from the said above despite repeated reminders.

16.  As there was no response from the Appellant, the bank engaged the services of Mr. R.P. ARORA, Advocate, in order to find out as to what happened to the suit filed by the appellant on behalf of the bank.

17.  Mr. Arora informed the bank that the suit which been filed on Dec, 15, 1995 was returned by the original branch, the registry of the High Court with objection & thereafter the suit has not re- filled in the registry of the High Court. [5]



1.      In 1995, the bank engaged the firm to rile on recovery suit for the amount of Rs. 6,12,16, 410 from M/S Delhi Flooring (pvt) Ltd & handed over the case- rile containing ordinal &valuable documents.

2.      The firm submitted a bill fir celling the recovery suit which included the professional fees & other miscellaneous charges.

3.      On 15.11.1995 the bank paid a sum of Rs. 11,475 which included 1/3rd of the professional fee and the miscellaneous charges.[6]

4.      It did not inform the bank whether the suit was filed or not.

5.      On 5.12.1995 the bank wrote a letter to the firm to send a copy of the plaint before 8.12.1995 or the bank would be compelled to withdrawn the case from the firm.

6.      On 15.12.1995, one of the partners of the firm informed the bank the suit was filed on 15.12.1995 in the High Court.

7.      The bank engaged the service of one Mr. Arora, Advocate, in order to find out as to what happened to the suit.

8.      On 2 March, 1999 at the bank was informed by Mr. Arora, Advocate that suit was filed on 15.12.1995 in the High Court and on 31.1.1996, it was returned by the original branch to the registry with objections. Mr. Arora, Advocate further informed the bank on 31.3.1997 that the entire suit paper book was returned to Mr. Singh, Advocate of the firm on 29.9.1996 for removing the objections & thereafter the suit was not refilled. [7]

9.      The respondent bank thereafter, claimed before the Bar Council of Delhi that appellant & his associates misappropriated the money paid to them for court fee, miscellaneous expenses & one-third of the professional fee.

10.  The complainant further stated that, even the documents & other papers handed over to the appellant & his associates for filing the suit were not returned the complainant was originally registered with the Bar Council of Delhi .

11.  On September 19. 1999 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred the case to the Bar Council of India on the ground that the case had been pending for more than one year.

12.  The Bar Council of India issues notices returnable on 2.11.1980. the appellant & his associates were not present on that date. Therefore fresh notices were issued for 20.12.1980, the appellant did not present on 20.12.1980 & ex-parte proceedings were ordered.

13.  On 23.1.1981 the appellant moved on appreciation for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 20.12.1980 which was allowed & the case was adjourned to 29.2.1981.

14.  The case was adjourned from time to time & finally fixed for evidence on 22.8.1981 on 22.8.1981, the appellant application for adjournment was rejected the evidence was concluded, arguments were heard & the order was reserved.

15.  The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that the case against the appellant & his associates was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Their names were removed from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi & the sanands granted to them were ordered to be withdrawn.


1.      Initially the case was before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.

2.      The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred the case of the Bar Council of India, as the case was pending for more than one year.


1.      Mr. R.P. Arora appeared as a witness before the Bar Council of India.

2.      Mr. R.P. Arora examined the records of Delhi High Court.

3.      Mr. R.P. Arora. Advocates, after examining the records of the Delhi High Court had send two reports to the State Bank of India.

4.      In this report dates March 2, 1999 he stated as under:-

i)                    “As desired by you, to know the where about of the above noted case, I contacted the concern clerk in the original Branch of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi & also inspected the register of the original suits.

ii)                  The above noted case was filed by M/S Singh & Company on 15.12.195 but there were certain objections by the original branch & on 31.1.1996 the said case file as returned to the registree by the original branch.

iii)                The register of the registree in respect of the period from 31.1.1996 is not available & I shall let you know the up to date information. When the said case was returned to M/S Singh & company within a short period.

5.       In this report dated March 31, 1999, Mr. R.P. Arora, Advocate gave the following information to the bank.

i)                    ‘I have enquired from the original section of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, which the file of the above stated case was returned to Shri. B. Singh on 29.9.1996 as the said case was under objections. So far he has not again filed the said case in High Court.’

6.      Both the above quoted reports have been proved on the record of the Bar Council of India as evidence.

7.      The Bar Council of India on appreciation of the evidence before t came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant & Mr. B. Singh was proved beyond doubt.


1.      After having gone through the evidence & the document produced in the case carefully. We have come to the conclusion that the complainant had entrusted to suit to be filed against M/S Delhi Flooring (pvt) Ltd.

2.      The necessary papers & Rs. 11,495 for expenses etc., to the respondent, Advocate.

3.      It is also established that the respondents have filed the suit on 15.12.1995 with some objections deliberately & when the papers were returned by the High Court.

4.      They had not refined the suit for a pretty long time is established tiff this day.

5.      So. We have no hesitation to conclude that the respondents have misappropriated that amount realized by them.

6.      The bank without filing the suit in a proper manner.

7.      The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that the case against the appellant & his associates was proved beyond reasonable doubt, their names were removed from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi & the sanad granted to them were ordered to be withdrawn.


1.      Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no cost.



1.      Under section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

2.      It was the professional misconduct.

3.      The suit has not been refilled in the Registry of the High Courts of Delhi.



[2] (last seen: 16/05/21)

[3]  (last seen: 16/05/21)

[4] (last seen: 16/05/21)

[5] (last seen: 16/05/21)

[6] (last seen: 16/05/21)

[7] (last seen: 16/05/21)