THE ADVOCATES ACT AND ITS ROLE IN ENSURING PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

This Article is Written by Ishmeet kaur of Delhi metropolitan education Collage, an intern Under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

The Advocates Act, 1961, is the cornerstone of legal professional regulation in India. It goes beyond a licensing law, serving as a vital safeguard to uphold the credibility of the justice system. This paper examines how the Act incorporates mechanisms of professional accountability through regulatory oversight by the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils. It further explores key judicial interpretations that define professional misconduct and highlights the practical challenges in enforcing ethical standards. By analysing these issues, the paper underscores the urgent need for structural reforms to ensure that the legal profession remains competent, ethical, and publicly accountable.

KEYWORDS

Advocates Act, Professional Misconduct, Bar Council of India, State Bar Councils, Disciplinary Proceedings, Legal Ethics, Judicial Oversight, Professional Accountability, Legal Regulation in India, Code of Conduct,

INTRODUCTION

The Advocates Act, 1961, is not just a piece of statute; it is a primal stone that endeavours to forge and regulate a disciplined, united, and ethical legal profession in India. Prior to its enactment, legal practitioners in the various provinces were governed by a conflicting mosaic of laws and a fragmented system of enrolment and conduct. The Act fastened unto itself a national vision-a consolidation of legal practice which upheld professional integrity. The very structure of the Act bears an unmistakable legislative intent: that the persons who plead on behalf of others in a court of law ought not only to be qualified by degree but also ethically accountable and professionally competent.

At heart, the Act holds within itself a constitutional moral compass. Legal practice in India is more than a profession; it is a public trust¹. The reformers of the Act had in mind a lawyer as a defender of justice and not a trader of legal services. In furtherance of this aim, the Act has prescribed clearly defined qualifications for enrolment (Section 24), an evaluation mechanism for post-enrolment by way of the All-India Bar Examination, and, most importantly, a discipline framework to detain professional misconduct². Therefore, accountability is not a gloss over but rather a central pillar on which the architecture of the Act rests.

This vision operationalizes the two-tier regulatory architecture of the Act-the Bar Council of India at the national level and State Bar Councils in each state. They are not mere administrative agencies issuing licenses, but custodians of ethical practice. They are empowered to enrol advocates, prescribe rules of professional conduct, regulate legal education, and initiate disciplinary proceedings where ethical lines are crossed. Performance of functions by the Bar Council of India under Section 7 of the Act goes beyond enrolment and includes setting of academic standards, inspection of law colleges, and general discipline of advocates in India³.

Each State Bar Council is further responsible to keep the roll of advocates under its jurisdiction, to form disciplinary bodies and investigate complaints of professional misconduct. Such

Councils possess a quasi-judicial nature regarding their disciplinary authority, which is very essential to ensuring the enforcement of ethical obligations. The mechanism is thus intricate and multilayered-first, the complaint goes to the State Bar Council; then it proceeds to the Disciplinary Committee, if necessary. The Bar Council of India also hears cases from the Committee against which appeals can be made, and very rarely, matters can be taken up by the Supreme Court.

This structure is meant to ensure that accountability does not remain on paper but is a lived reality in practice. This is the legal profession operating under a continuous internal self-regulatory organisation backed by statute. For these Councils to operate in an efficient manner, though, they must remain vigilant custodians of the integrity of the legal profession, not a sleeping bureaucracy.

The Advocates Act, therefore, is more than an avenue of administrative guidance; it creates a constitutional responsibility⁵. It obligates an ethical practice of legal representation with the power to maintain such practice. It does so in an interest not only to regulate a profession but to protect democracy.

ETHICS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DISCIPLINARY MECHANISMS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION

In any society, the legal profession is considered to be the backbone of justice delivery, and in India, this spine has the sturdy support of ethical entrenchments and accountability. The Advocates Act, 1961, read along with the Bar Council of India Rules, provides the normative standard for advocates in the form of a code of conduct. This code is regarded as more than a mere set of instructions; it represents the ethical philosophy of the legal profession. It encapsulates what an advocate is: not only a professional skilled in law but also a person bearing a moral obligation to the court, to the client, to society, and even to the opposite side.

It is expected of advocates that they shall carry the highest standards of integrity, promote the interests of their clients in a manner that does not compromise the dignity of the legal process,

and above all, maintain an undivided fidelity to the court^. They set out grossly unethical conduct that includes touting, advertising, and unfair means of obtaining clients, violating the confidentiality of the client, misappropriating clients’ funds, and various other acts that result in a conflict of interest. They also require that a lawyer shall not communicate with the judging forum privately or seek to influence that forum through improper means. These obligations rest firmly with statutory law but take their soul from the moral code that governs this profession, so intertwined with justice

The violation of the standards constitutes what the Advocates Act considers “professional misconduct.” This is where Section 35 steps in. Section 35 forms the disciplinary gate to the legal profession. Whenever one is alleged to have committed misconduct, the matter is referred to the State Bar Council where that person is enrolled. After a preliminary scrutiny, if a prima facie case is found to exist, then the Bar Council refers the case to the Disciplinary Committee, which has the power to conduct a formal inquiry into the matter.

Section 35 gives power to these committees to impose serious penalties. Such penalties can include reprimanding the advocate, suspending the advocate from practice for a period of time, or, in the most serious cases, removing the advocate’s name from the roll altogether. These are serious penalties: they could end a legal career or cause the greatest damage to it. The seriousness of these penalties expresses the significance placed by the statute on the public’s confidence in the legal profession. This is a profession where the courtroom does not permit marketing, and the advocate is not a vendor of arguments. He or she represents justice; any transgressions of the ethical norms compromise the legitimacy of the legal system itself.

As mentioned, the enforcement of these principles is only as good as the institutional mechanisms providing backup. In this regard, the Disciplinary Committees intervene as important watchdogs of accountability. They are constituted at the state as well as the national level with members elected from among advocates and nominees from the Bar Council^. They are empowered to ensure that the inquiries are conducted fairly, impartially, and according to the principles of natural justice: Advocates against whom complaints have been made must be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, and the decisions must be reasoned and based

However, the functioning of these committees on the eve of real-life existence has been a mixed story. Despite being intended to be independent, many committees are presently suffering from severe delays. Charges of misconduct are often left to linger for years on end, frustrating complainants and substantially denying justice. Their efficiency has further been compromised due to lack of infrastructural and administrative support. Further, accusations of bias, political interference, and internal collusion have arisen in different jurisdictions, therefore eroding public faith in the disciplinary undertaking^.

Another very critical concern is that in very similar cases of misconduct, persons could be given varying penalties based on who handles the case at the State Bar Council level. It directly impacts failures by the legal and ethical principles even in considering the punishment. It provides for some arbitrary action, especially in awarding low punishment, thus leading to less deterrence for the discipline to be effective. The concept of self-regulation might look good in theory, but practically it falters when those regulating are either unwilling or unable to hold their peers to account

The very harshness, or otherwise lightness, of discipline becomes vital when an expanding legal profession, in numbers and complexities, must above all be seen to conduct itself with competence and unblemished integrity. In a country still reeling under the fast-growing menace of legal illiteracy, particularly in the rural places, lawyers may be the first and sometimes only line of access to justice. If they remain unaccountable, the whole system of justice rests on a precarious edge.

Ostensibly, the Advocates Act seeks not only to weed out the incompetent but also to foster a professional culture of ethical vigilance. The Code of Conduct raises the moral floor, Section 35 provides the enforcement teeth, and the Disciplinary Committees act as the spine of institutional enforcement. All these wings must exist and perform with rigor, consistency, and purpose so that the legal profession can maintain its credibility. Only then can the advocacy truly fulfill its constitutional role, that of a voice for justice

JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND INTERPRETATION OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

However, the Judiciary has provided additional interpretative depth to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, which lay down the structure and procedure to ensure professional accountability. It has primarily been the Indian courts that have been instrumental in defining the contours of professional misconduct and ensuring that disciplinary mechanisms are not limited to black-letter law, but instead reside within the ever-evolving ethical horizons of the profession.

One such case is V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan Constituting the law of the land, Supreme Court held that lawyers are not traders rather practice of law has not to be described as business ] the Court lay down that advocacy is noble; hence, institutes a higher moral obligation upon the professionals. Misconduct would not be restricted to criminal or fraudulent action, but also include any act that decreases dignity of the profession or compromises interests of justice.

Likewise, the importance of professional discipline was elaborated by the Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar. The legal profession monopolizes representations to the court and, as such, entails institutional responsibility. An advocate is henceforth recognized as an officer of court and custodian of public trust. Therefore, any conduct eroding such trust, even away from the court, is likely to be subjected to disciplinary action if it affects the integrity of the profession.

Judiciary has emphasized the need for procedural fairness in a disciplinary proceeding. In some rulings, the courts have ordered the Bar Councils to act speedily, openly and impartially¹³. Delay in the complaint settlement is reproached, and in a few cases, courts have directly intervened to ensure that justice does not lapse because of procedural lethargy.

In this way, the Indian judiciary has defined professional accountability as a concept that is dynamic in that it does not remain the same as law as well as the moral compass of the professional will shape it¹⁴. The decisions made are the interpretative backbone of the

The discussion for revamping the discipline set up under the Advocates Act has been heard loud and clear in recent years. The Law Commission of India has suggested forming a completely independent Legal Services Authority unconnected with the Bar Councils in order to eliminate any conflict of interests as far as disciplinary matters are concerned. Legal reform scholars are further advocating in favor of digitizing disciplinary records, making the complaint process more transparent or perhaps allowing the annual ethics compliance filing of advocate practice, among other things. These facilities are apparently directed towards creating the culture of continuous accountability rather than that of possible remedial measures after a complaint is made¹⁵. Combined with judicial scrutiny, these reforms might provide the legal profession with an overhaul that it desperately deserves and that meets the expectations of a modern democracy.

GAPS AND CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK

In spite of the Advocates Act of 1961 being extremely comprehensive in its intent and its framework being quite clearly laid down, these provisions still remain in existence that significantly handicap the enforcement of professional accountability within the Indian legal system. Although the law provides a rigid code of conduct to which lawyers must adhere, along with provisions for actions in case of misconduct, there is often a mismatch or apathy toward enforcing these provisions.”

One constant in the Indian Disciplinary proceedings is the indefensible delay. Cases of professional misconduct, therefore, languish for a couple of years, rendering the whole system of sufficed and credible action ineffective. The delays become a serious detriment to deterrence and embolden an accomplice of wrongdoings on the part of advocates, who now feel that they may, more or less, get away without the risk of penalization therefor. Added to these, the opacity of the working of the Disciplinary Committees brings further questions as to fairness: the processes are hardly transparent, whereas complainants are not routinely kept up to the mark

in real-time or given comprehensive minute-by-minute reports of ongoing decisions. This growing opacity in the Disciplinary Committees has caused a lack of faith in the entire accountability regime.

Internal biases and political interference within State Bar Councils serve to further complicate matters. The opportunity for favoritism or retaliation cannot easily be ignored, for the greater number of members of these councils are elected by their peers. This conflict of interest has oftentimes been stated as one of the reasons for leniency or failure to act in the case of lawyer wilfulness.

Additionally, deficiencies in administration, such as insufficiently trained manpower, poor infrastructural facilities, and dated record-keeping practices, hamper the effective functioning of these regulatory agencies¹⁸. Providing a further obstacle is the low level of public awareness regarding the rights and remedies available to clients. Many persons, especially from rural and marginalized communities, remain unaware of the fact that they can lodge complaints against advocates for misconduct.

These systemic weaknesses, when left unattended, will not only destroy the credibility of the legal profession, but they will also seriously undermine public trust in the system of administration of justice. Hence, there should be a transformation of these mechanisms of accountability from being symbols of presence to being active instruments of enforcement.

CONCLUSION

Besides procedural law, the Advocates Act, 1961 which enshrines the practice of law is ethical, competent and just. However, in order for the Act to function adequately for purposes of professional accountability, systemic reforms are necessary. Speedier, transparent and influence-free disciplinary mechanisms would then see the legal profession working effectively as the guardian of justice and rule of law in a democratic setup.

Discipline mechanisms must become speedier, more transparent and stripped of influences if the legal profession is to perform effectively as guard and power of justice as well as the rule of law in a democratic society.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.