Court Comes to Rescue of Advocate Suspended by Bar Council

Hyderabad:Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court suspended proceedings of the Bar Council of Telangana which in turn had suspended a lawyer from practicing. The judge found prima facie that the Bar Council had no such power. The court was of the opinion that Bar Council could not suspend an advocate from practicing law merely because disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by R. Subramanian, challenging the order dated November 15, 2025, passed by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Telangana. It was the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without considering relevant facts and was in contravention of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Part II Chapter VII Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. Justice Tukaramji relied heavily on a judgement of Madras High Court which observed that there is no employer and employee relationship between the Bar Council and advocate and therefore, suspending the enrolment of an advocate pending enquiry of the disciplinary committee was without the authority of law. Counsel appearing for the State Bar Council pointed to various irregularities in the conduct of the writ petitioner. Justice Tukaramji made it clear that the court was not concerned with those aspects and was restricting itself to a judicial review of the order under challenge. He said that prima facie the power of the Bar Council to suspend a practising advocate exists, and since the matter required a detailed inquiry, the balance of convenience was with the petitioner. The judge made further clear that the present order would not otherwise inhibit the bar council from any proceedings to be or already initiated by the bar council against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Forcible action without due process is impermissible: HC

State revenue authorities will remain restrained from dispossessing occupants of MA Garden Function Hall at Hyderguda, Hyderabad with a two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissing writ appeals filed by the state. The panel held that forcible action without due process was impermissible. The panel was hearing appeals arising out of writ petitions filed by the operators of the function hall, who claimed possession of the property as lessees. The dispute related to the lessor, Kishan Chand Foundation Trust, which contended title over the land and was earlier liberty by the Supreme Court to institute appropriate civil proceedings. The panel noted that within two days of the Supreme Court granting such liberty, the state authorities locked the function hall, effectively preventing its use. It held that the possession of the writ petitioners flowed from the lessor and that the state could not, by taking precipitate action, defeat the civil remedy made available to the lessor by the Supreme Court. Observing that even disputed questions of title cannot justify forcible dispossession without following due process, the panel held that the action of the authorities in locking the premises was arbitrary. The panel found no infirmity in the directions of the single judge to unlock the premises and restrain interference for a limited period, while leaving all questions relating to title and rights to be decided by the competent civil court. Accordingly, the panel of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed the writ appeals filed by the state.

Law not followed; HC stays closure of nursing home

Justice E. V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court stayed the closure of a private nursing home at Ramayampet, Medak district, holding that prima facie the mandatory procedure under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act was not followed. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Dr Krishnaveni, proprietor of Sri Sai Krishna Nursing Home, challenging proceedings issued by the Medak district medical and health officer, directing closure of the hospital on or before January 3 this year. The petitioner questioned the proceedings of December 2025, cancelling the registration of the hospital and directing its closure, contending that the action was taken without issuing the statutory notice or affording an opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 32 of the Clinical Establishments Act. It was further contended that the enquiry report, based on which the closure was ordered, was never furnished to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order merely referred to recommendations of an internal committee and directed immediate closure, without citing any specific provision of law or complying with the safeguards prescribed under the Act. After considering the submissions, the judge observed that prima facie the impugned proceedings were issued without reference to the relevant statutory provisions and that the enquiry report relied upon by the authorities required detailed examination. The judge noted that in the absence of compliance with Section 32(3) of the Act, the action appeared to be in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the judge granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the closure order and posted the matter for further hearing on February 4.