B.P. Sinha, C.J. - (1.)THE Advocate proceeded against for professional misconduct was enrolled as an advocate of the Allahabad High Court in December 1958. In January 1961, he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court. The proceeding against him were taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in Order IV -A of the Supreme Court Rules.
(2.)IN March this year the Registrar of this Court received a letter, marked 'Secret', from the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of Law and Judiciary, to the effect that the "Advocate on Record" of the Supreme Court had addressed a postcard, dated January 1, 1961 to the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra, which "constitutes a gross case of advertisement and solicitation for work". The original postcard was enclosed with the letter, with the request that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court for such action as to their Lordships may deem fit and proper. The postcard, which was marked as Ex. A in the proceedings which followed, is in these terms:
Trilok Singh AroraAdvocate on Record.Supreme Court,Office and Residence B -9, ModelTown,Delhi -9.Dated 19 -1 -61.

Dear Sir,

Jai Hind.

Your attention is drawn to the Rule 20 of Order IVof the Supreme Court Rules 1950 (as amended upto date) to appoint an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court as according to this rule 'no advocate other than an advocate on Record shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advocate on Record'.

You might have got an Advocate on Record in this Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if you so wish and agree.

Hoping to be favoured.Thanks,

Yours sincerely,Sd: Trilok Singh Arora,

To

The Minister of Law,Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.

When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, he directed the Registrar informally to enquire from the Advocate concerned whether the postcard in question had been written by him and bore his rubber stamp and signature. The Registrar called him, and in answer to his queries, the Advocate admitted that the postcard bore his rubber stamp & signature and that it had in fact been despatched by him. He also informed the Registrar that he had addressed similar postcards to other parties. The Advocate added that he did not realise that in addressing those postcards he was committing any wrong or breach of etiquette. The Chief Justice, on receiving the aforesaid information, placed the matter before a Committee of 3 Judges of this Court, under Rule 2 Order IV -A. The Committee considered the matter referred to it, and on receiving its opinion, the Chief Justice constituted a Tribunal of three members of the Bar, Shri Bishan Narain and Shri A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocates, and Shri I.N. Shroff, Advocate, with Shri Bishan Narain as its President, for holding the necessary enquiry into the alleged conduct of the Advocate proceeded against. In reply to the notice served on the Advocate, he chose to behave in a most irresponsible way by alleging that the complaint in question by the Government of Maharashtra "is false, mala fide and misconceived". He denied that he had written the letter in question, which he characterized as "the work of any miscreant". He added further that even if it were proved that the letter in question had been written by him, a mere perusal of it would show that there was nothing unprofessional or otherwise objectionable in it, and he added further that "certainly it is not solicitation of work if one inquires from any person whether it requires or wishes and agrees to have the services of another advocate". The Advocate was examined as witness on his own behalf and the Tribunal put the postcard to him. The following questions by the Tribunal and answers by the Advocate will show the determined way in which he denied what he had admitted to the Registrar.

Tribunal: This postcard which has been brought to the notice of the Court purports to be from you. Is this the postcard which you have writ - ten? Witness: No. Tribunal: Has it not gone from your office? Witness: No. There is no doubt it bears the seal of my office, but it has not been affixed by me. Tribunal: You say it does bear your name and that the rubber stamp which appears is of your office but that it has not been affixed by you. Witness: Yes. Tribunal: Is the hand -writing which one finds on this Postcard your hand -writing? Witness: No. Tribunal : And the signature which is at the foot of the letter, you say, is not your signature. Witness: No, it is not mine.

The Tribunal pursued the matter further to find out as to how the postcard had purported to emanate from his office, and then certain documents, marked Exs. B to E, were brought on the record with a view to comparing his admitted hand -writing in those documents with that of the postcard in question. The Tribunal also made him write a letter in the very terms in which the postcard is written, with a view to making a comparison of the handwriting on the postcard with his admitted writing in identical terms, given by him in Court. The Tribunal then confronted him with his admissions made to the Registrar, as aforesaid, before the proceedings started. The following questions and answers will further indicate his attitude;

Tribunal: In what respects do you find any difference between your normal signature and this signature (signature on the postcard is shown to him). Witness: It appears to be like my signature, but it is not my signature. Signature on Ex. A is not my signature. Tribunal: In connection with this postcard, did you see the Registrar (Supreme Court) ? Witness: Yes he called me. Tribunal: When ? Do you know thedate ? Witness: I do not remember. Tribunal: Did you say anything tohim ? Witness: I did not make any statement: He showed me the postcard. I told him as I said here, that I had not written it; somebody else might have written it. Tribunal: Did you admit before the Registrar that this letter was written by you? Witness: I did not admit it but he told me that if I admitted it, the matter might be hushed up Tribunal: Did you say to the Registrar that you did not realise, that in so doing you were doing any thing wrong? Witness: No. I did not say anything. Tribunal: Do you want to produce anyevidence ? Witness:

No, because I have not done anything; so, I do not want, to produce any evidence Even if it is found that I have written the postcard, even then on merits, there is nothing in this Case".

Finding that the Advocate was adamant in his denial that he wrote the postcard or that he had made any statement before the Registrar, the Tribunal called the Registrar as a witness and examined him on solemn affirmation. The Registrar gave his evidence and fully supported his previous report that the Advocate had made those admissions before him.

(3.)AFTER recording the evidence, oral and documentary, the Tribunal made the report that in spite of stout denial by the Advocate concerned, the Tribunal was satisfied that the postcard in question had been written by him. The Tribunal was also of opinion that the Advocate did not realize that in writing the postcard he was committing a breach of professional etiquette and of professional ethics. It also remarked that it was unfortunate that the Advocate chose to deny the authorship of the postcard. The findings of the Tribunal, along with the evidence and record of the case, have been placed before us. The Advocate, on notice, has appeared before us and we have heard him. Before us also the Advocate first took up the same attitude as he had adopted before the Tribunal, but on being pressed by the Court to make a true state -merit as to whether he had written the postcard and had admitted before the Registrar that he had done so, he answered in the affirmative.