V. P.
KUMARVELU v BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AIR 1997 SC 1014
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of LLB
Submitted By
KANISHKA JOSHI
Registration no.- 23FL10LLB00035
Sem.-II
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR
Submitted To
SWATI SHARDA
Assistant Professor
FACULTY OF LAW
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR
Date- 7TH MARCH, 2024
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the judgment analysis of the case ‘V. P. KUMARVELU v BAR COUNCIL OF
INDIA’ is a record of the bonafide work done by KANISHKA JOSHI (Registration no.-
23FL10LLB00035) submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of the LLB in Faculty of
Law of Manipal University Jaipur, during the academic year 2023-24.
Ms. Swati Sharda
Assistant Professor, Department of Law (C&M)
Manipal University, Jaipur
Dr. Sony Kulshrestha
HOD, Department of Law (C&M)
Manipal University, Jaipur
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this undertaking could not have been possible without the participation and assistance of so many
people whose names may not all be enumerated.
I dedicate this project to the Dean/Director, Department HOD, Project supervisor, Department guide, Laboratory
incharge and faculty members whose assistance was sought during the project work.
To my parents, friends and others who in one way or another shared their support, either morally, financially and
physically, thank you.
Above all, to the great Almighty, the author of knowledge and wisdom, for his countless love.
Thank you.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. NAME OF THE CASE
2. CITATIONS OF THE CASE
3. NAME OF THE PETITIONER
4. NAME OF THE RESPONDENT
5. DATE OF THE JUDGMENT
6. NAMES OF THE JUDGES
7. FACTS OF THE CASE
8. ISSUES IN HAND
9. JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
10. CONCLUSION
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE JUDGMENT ANALYSIS V. P. KUMARAVELU v BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Name of the case- V. P. Kumarvelu v Bar Council of India
Citations of the case- AIR 1997 SC 1014, 1997 (4) SCC 266
Name of the petitioner- V. P. Kumarvelu
Name of the respondent-The Bar Council of India, New Delhi & ors.
Date of the judgment- 04/02/1997
Bench of judges- S.C. Agrawal, Sujata v. Manohar
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the VP Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India case in 1997, the matter revolved around allegations
of professional misconduct against Kumaravelu, a practicing advocate. The Bar Council of India
accused Kumaravelu of violating professional ethics and conduct rules where an omission on part
of the City Government Pleader to prosecute two cases was there which resulted in ex parte decrees
against the State. Moreover, the staff allotted to him failed to put up before him the papers of the
cases concerned due to heavy pressure of work. The Deputy Executive Tehsildar was also directed
by the Collector to meet with the Government Pleader with the concerned case files and to assist
him in preparing the written statement but he failed to do so. The case involved detailed examination
of Kumaravelu's actions and whether they breached the standards expected of legal professionals.
The outcome of the case likely depended on the specific allegations and evidence presented, with
the Bar Council of India seeking disciplinary action against Kumaravelu if found guilty of
professional misconduct.
ISSUES IN HAND
In the VP Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India (BCI) case, several key issues were addressed. Firstly,
it involved allegations of professional misconduct against a lawyer, raising questions about the
disciplinary process within the legal profession.
Secondly, it highlighted the importance of ensuring that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
are conducted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The case raised concerns about the rights of lawyers to practice their profession without unjust
interference or restrictions.
It also questioned when negligence amounts to professional misconduct.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
In the above-mentioned case, the Court held that the inability of the petitioner to present the cases
before the Court will be considered a contributory negligence and not a professional misconduct. In
my opinion, what the Court decided is absolutely correct and satisfactory as this judgment is neither
too harsh nor too lenient. It will not be considered a professional misconduct since the omissions
were not deliberate but due to the pressure of work. It is a contributory negligence because the
petitioner was not able to prosecute those two cases due to the inability of the subordinate workers
to present before him the cases on the prescribed time. It would have amounted to professional
misconduct if he’d deliberately not presented the cases before the court. In the case of VP
Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India (BCI), the judgment upheld the principles of natural justice and
fairness. The court emphasized that lawyers have a fundamental right to practice their profession,
and any disciplinary action taken against them must be fair, transparent, and in accordance with the
law. It highlighted the importance of giving lawyers an opportunity to present their case and defend
themselves before any disciplinary action is taken. The court also said that whether negligence will
amount to professional misconduct or not will depend upon the facts of each case. Additionally, the
judgment stressed the need for disciplinary proceedings to be conducted expeditiously to avoid
unnecessary delays and hardships for the accused lawyers. Overall, the judgment reaffirmed the
fundamental rights of lawyers and the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
CONCLUSION
In the case of VP Kumaravelu v. BCI, the conclusion reached by the court was that the respondent
(BCI) did not have the authority to suspend the petitioner (Kumaravelu) from practicing law. The
court held that such power lies exclusively with the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council.
As for suggestions, it is recommended that regulatory bodies like the BCI adhere strictly to their
jurisdictional limits and procedural guidelines to ensure fair and just disciplinary actions against
legal practitioners. In such circumstances and in absence of any moral turpitude or delinquency on
the part of the Government Pleader, such omissions on his part, amounted only to negligence and
not to professional misconduct.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.scconline.com
https://www.lawoctopus.com
https://www.lawbhoomi.com
https://www.indiankanoon.org
https://blog.ipleaders.in
