The Supreme Court has ruled that banks and the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) cannot include an advocate’s name in the IBA Caution List merely on allegations of professional negligence or an erroneous legal opinion, holding that such action is illegal, beyond their jurisdiction, and infringes upon the advocate’s constitutional right to practice the profession. The Court also declared that disciplinary proceedings against advocates fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Bar Councils constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by advocate Ajay Vijh, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment that had dismissed his writ petition on the ground that the IBA was not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable because the inclusion of an advocate’s name in the Caution List has significant public law consequences, directly affecting the advocate’s professional reputation, livelihood, and fundamental right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Buy Now: June 2026 Ultimate Legal & Taxation Combo
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose after Canara Bank alleged that a legal opinion rendered by advocate Ajay Vijh in 2015 regarding the title of a property offered as collateral for a loan was erroneous. The Bank claimed that he failed to notice that part of the land had already been sold, thereby exposing the Bank to financial risk. After considering his explanation, the Bank removed him from its panel of advocates in January 2019 and subsequently forwarded his name to the IBA for inclusion in its “Third Party Entities Involved in Fraud” Caution List. The remarks against him stated that he had given a wrong legal opinion and had been negligent in conducting the title search. The advocate challenged the action, arguing that he was never given notice before his inclusion in the Caution List and that the listing severely damaged his professional career across multiple banking institutions.
Writ Maintainable Despite IBA Not Being ‘State’
Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 does not depend solely on whether the respondent qualifies as “State” under Article 12. Instead, the decisive factor is whether the impugned action performs a public function or has a public law element affecting legal rights.
The Court observed that the IBA’s Caution List functions as an industry-wide adverse accreditation mechanism influencing banks across the country. Since inclusion in such a list has far-reaching consequences on an advocate’s ability to secure professional engagements, judicial review under Article 226 is available even against a private body performing public functions.
RBI Circulars Intended Only for Fraud Cases
A central issue before the Court was whether the RBI’s regulatory framework permitted banks to include advocates in the Caution List for alleged negligence.
After examining the RBI Circular dated March 16, 2009, the 2016 Fraud Classification Directions, and the 2024 Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management, the Court concluded that the Caution List mechanism was created solely to alert banks about professionals involved in fraudulent banking transactions. It was never intended to cover cases involving mere negligence, errors of professional judgment, or allegedly incorrect legal opinions.
The Court distinguished negligence from fraud, observing that fraud necessarily involves dishonest intent or deliberate misconduct, whereas professional errors or omissions, in the absence of mala fide intent, cannot be equated with fraud.
Accordingly, it held that RBI’s directions under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act cannot be interpreted to authorize banks or the IBA to publicly brand advocates as professionally incompetent by placing them in a fraud-related caution list.
Banks May Remove Advocates from Panels but Cannot Declare Them Professionally Incompetent
The Court clarified that banks undoubtedly have the contractual freedom to discontinue empanelment of advocates if they are dissatisfied with the quality of legal services rendered. However, that contractual right does not extend to circulating adverse industry-wide declarations regarding an advocate’s competence or integrity.
It held that while a bank may disengage a lawyer from its panel, it has no authority to effectively blacklist the advocate before all banks by using the Caution List mechanism, especially when the allegation is limited to negligence. Such action amounts to an unauthorized public declaration regarding professional competence and has serious consequences for the advocate’s livelihood.
Only Bar Councils Can Decide Professional Misconduct
The Supreme Court emphatically reaffirmed that the Advocates Act, 1961 establishes a complete statutory framework governing professional misconduct of advocates. Questions relating to negligence, competence, or misconduct fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India.
The Bench observed that the legal profession occupies a unique constitutional position, with its independence secured through self-regulation. Allowing banks or other executive bodies to adjudicate upon professional misconduct would undermine the statutory scheme and compromise the independence of the Bar.
The Court stated that if a bank believes an advocate has committed professional misconduct, its remedy is to place the relevant material before the competent State Bar Council for disciplinary action under the Advocates Act rather than imposing its own industry-wide sanctions.
Supreme Court Directs BCI to Audit Disciplinary Mechanism
While protecting the autonomy of the legal profession, the Court also stressed that self-regulation must be accompanied by accountability.
Expressing concern over delays and inefficiencies in disciplinary proceedings before Bar Councils, the Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to undertake a comprehensive performance audit of its disciplinary system as well as that of State Bar Councils.
The audit is expected to evaluate the number of complaints filed and disposed of annually, pendency levels, disposal timelines, procedural consistency across States, transparency of disciplinary proceedings, staffing adequacy, and compliance with statutory timelines. The BCI has been directed to constitute an expert committee, assess its regulatory mechanisms, and place the proposed reforms before the Court through an affidavit.
Push for Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy
In a significant institutional reform initiative, the Supreme Court also highlighted the absence of structured Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for advocates in India.
The Bench observed that legal knowledge, professional ethics, advocacy skills, and technological competence require continuous updating throughout a lawyer’s career. Drawing comparisons with jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, and Australia, the Court noted that mandatory continuing legal education has become an integral component of professional regulation worldwide.
The Court directed the Bar Council of India to institutionalize Continuing Legal Education and also consider establishing a National Legal Academy (NLA) for advocates on the lines of the National Judicial Academy for judges. The proposed institution would focus on post-enrolment professional training, ethical standards, advocacy skills, technology, and improving the quality of justice delivery. The matter has been listed for further consideration on August 31, 2026, to review the BCI’s response regarding these reforms.
Final Verdict
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court declared that the inclusion of the appellant’s name in the IBA Caution List was without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. It directed the respondents to remove his name from the Caution List with immediate effect and reaffirmed that allegations of professional negligence against advocates can only be examined through the disciplinary framework established under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: GST SCN Beyond Limitation Invalid; Parallel CGST Proceedings on Same ITC Issue Barred: Tripura HC
