Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors. – Supreme Court Decision In this case, a complaint alleging professional misconduct was filed against advocate Rajiv Narula, claiming he defrauded a deceased father’s property rights via consent terms in a civil suit. The Bar Council referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee, but Narula challenged this in Bombay High Court, which stayed the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act requires a professional relationship between complainant and advocate. The Court emphasized that mere attestation of affidavits or identification of parties does not constitute misconduct. The reference order by the Bar Council was “cryptic and laconic,” lacking reasoned discussion, which is mandatory under Section 35. The Court quashed all proceedings, imposed costs of ₹50,000 each on the Bar Council and complainants, and underscored that frivolous complaints against advocates cause unnecessary harassment and grief.