58.
The answer is: B
Explanation
The correct option is B: O.P. Sharma Vs high court of Punjab & Haryana, (2011) 6 SCC 86
This case was about an advocate who was found guilty of professional misconduct for taking a brief from the opposite party of his former client in the same matter. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend his license for two years. The court observed that an advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system.
The statement reflects the high standards of conduct and ethics that are expected from advocates in India. The Bar Council of India Rules, also known as the “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette”, lays down the specific duties and responsibilities of advocates. Any violation of the ethical duties and professional responsibilities by an advocate may result in disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council. The Bar Council of India has the authority to take disciplinary action against advocates who are found guilty of professional misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings may include inquiries, hearings, and imposition of penalties, including suspension or cancellation of the advocate’s license to practice law.
The courts also have the authority to take action against advocates for any act of misconduct or breach of duties during court proceedings. The courts may impose fines, reprimand, or take other appropriate actions against advocates who violate their ethical duties or professional responsibilities. The courts have also emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and decorum of the court, and refraining from engaging in any act or behavior that may undermine the integrity or authority of the court.