{"id":389959,"date":"2026-07-10T10:30:37","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T05:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=389959"},"modified":"2026-07-10T10:14:42","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T04:44:42","slug":"sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/","title":{"rendered":"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court’s IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> The appeal challenged the Canara Bank’s decision to remove the appellant, an advocate, from its panel and enter his name in the “Caution List” maintained by the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) for alleged negligence in providing legal opinion. While deciding whether allegations of professional negligence or misconduct by an advocate fall within the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction created under the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a> (Advocates Act) and the Bar Councils have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with them, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, JJ., held that professional negligence or misconduct by an advocate fall within the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction created under the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a> and the Bar Councils have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with them.<\/p>\n

The Court asserted that the Banks cannot use the IBA Caution List mechanism to declare an advocate professionally negligent or incompetent before other banks. If a bank believes that an advocate has committed professional misconduct, it must approach the competent State Bar Council under the Advocates Act.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to remove the appellant’s name from the Caution List with immediate effect. The Court also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to undertake a performance audit of its disciplinary mechanisms and to take steps towards institutionalising continuing legal education (CLE) and considering the establishment of a National Legal Academy (NLA) for the advocates.<\/p>\n

Also Read: Advocate Entitled to Agreed Professional Fees Adjustable Against Compensation Amount: Delhi HC Dismisses Client’s Appeal on Failure to Prove Payment<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

The appellant was enrolled as an advocate in 1998. He had been empanelled with several banks and financial institutions for legal advisory work and claimed to have been on the panel of Canara Bank since September 2010. In the course of his professional engagement, he rendered a legal opinion on 8 August 2015 regarding immovable property offered as collateral security for a credit facility of ₹2 crores.<\/p>\n

The dispute began when the Regional Manager of Canara Bank issued a communication dated 27 July 2018 alleging that the legal opinion furnished by the appellant was erroneous. The Bank alleged that the appellant had opined that the entire property offered as security belonged to M\/s Pushpanjali Buildwell Private Limited, the guarantor in the loan transaction. According to the Bank, a portion of that property had already been sold through sale deeds dated 31 October 2012. The Bank contended that the appellant had failed to notice these prior transactions and that this omission exposed the Bank to financial risk.<\/p>\n

The appellant submitted a detailed reply on 17 August 2018. He maintained that his legal opinion had been based on a search certificate issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hapur, after inspection of the relevant records. He contended that the alleged sale deeds were not reflected in the records available at the relevant time and that he had acted in accordance with prevailing professional standards and the Bank’s own guidelines.<\/p>\n

Despite this explanation, Canara Bank removed the appellant from its panel through a communication dated 31 January 2019, citing negligence in title verification. The matter did not end with de-empanelment. The Bank forwarded the appellant’s name to the IBA, which included his name in its Caution List with effect from 5 February 2020. The list was titled “Third Party Entities Involved in Fraud”. The remarks against the appellant stated: “Given Wrong Legal Opinion and Negligence in Conducting Search and Bank was Exposed to Loss and Financial Risk.”<\/p>\n

Also Read: Jharkhand HC: State’s Undertaking on ₹6,000 Annual Premium for Advocates’ Health Insurance Binding; Non-Publication of Resolution in Official Gazette No Bar to Implementation<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Issue for Consideration<\/p>\n

Whether allegations of professional negligence or misconduct against an advocate fall within the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of the BCI under the Advocates Act?<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/p>\n

Professional Independence, Self-Regulation and BCI as Disciplinary Body<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court considered whether banks and the IBA could determine allegations of professional negligence or misconduct against an advocate. It noted that the appellant, the BCI, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Amicus Curiae had all submitted that such allegations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the disciplinary authorities constituted under the Advocates Act.<\/p>\n

The Court described the legal profession as sui generis. Unlike ordinary commercial professions, advocacy is a service-oriented and noble profession closely connected with the administration of justice. Advocates are officers of the court and owe duties not only to their clients but also to the court, the opposing side, and the justice delivery system.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that independence of the legal profession is as important as independence of the judiciary. The freedom of the Bar from external control is a foundational feature of the Rule of Law and democracy. This independence is protected through self-regulation, which has statutory recognition under the Advocates Act. The Advocates Act provides a comprehensive structure governing enrolment, standards of professional conduct, disciplinary control, and institutional supervision of advocates.<\/p>\n

The Court stressed that the principle that “peers must regulate peers” lies at the heart of the disciplinary structure. Allegations of professional misconduct are to be examined by specialised disciplinary committees constituted within the Bar Council framework. The Court relied on Supreme Court Bar Assn.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (1998) 4 SCC 409<\/a>, to reaffirm that the power to suspend or remove an advocate for professional misconduct vests exclusively in the statutory authorities created under the Advocates Act.<\/p>\n

Applying these principles, the Court held that the entry against the appellant in the IBA Caution List amounted to professional blacklisting. If Canara Bank believed that the appellant had committed professional negligence or misconduct, its proper course was to place the relevant material before the competent State Bar Council.<\/p>\n

The Court held that banks and banking associations cannot bypass the disciplinary mechanism under the Advocates Act and unilaterally portray an advocate as professionally incompetent through a Caution List. Consequently, the Court held that the action of including appellant’s name in the Caution List and the consequent comment on his competency was illegal and therefore, set aside.<\/p>\n

Also Read: Can’t Let Public Confidence Erode: Inside the BCI Order Suspending Advocate Samarth Singh Over Dowry Death Allegations<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BCI’s Duty to Undertake a Performance Audit of Its Disciplinary Jurisdiction<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court acknowledged that banks and financial institutions have legitimate concerns about the quality, diligence, and reliability of legal opinions, especially because banking transactions may involve substantial financial exposure. However, it clarified that its decision should not be understood as weakening the need for accountability within the legal profession.<\/p>\n

The Court asserted that accountability cannot be achieved through parallel structures such as adverse declarations in a Caution List. The appropriate solution is to strengthen the disciplinary mechanism established under the Advocates Act.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that public confidence in the justice delivery system depends substantially on the integrity, competence, and conduct of advocates, therefore, a robust, credible, transparent, and efficient disciplinary system is essential. While the Advocates Act entrusts disciplinary responsibility to the State Bar Councils and the BCI, that authority carries a corresponding duty to ensure that complaints are addressed promptly, fairly, and effectively.<\/p>\n

The Court noted recurring concerns regarding pendency, procedural delay, lack of uniformity across Bar Councils, inadequate public information about disciplinary proceedings, and uncertainty regarding their outcomes. It asserted that delay harms complainants, leaves advocates under a prolonged cloud of unresolved allegations, and weakens public confidence in the profession.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that disciplinary proceedings serve a protective function, not merely a punitive one. They are intended to preserve confidence in the administration of justice, address genuine misconduct, and prevent both frivolous complaints and institutional inaction.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Yash Developers<\/span> v. Harihar Krupa Coop. Housing Society Ltd.<\/span>, (2024) 9 SCC 606<\/a>, wherein the Court held that performance audits are necessary to determine whether a statutory or regulatory framework is functioning as intended. The Court stated that reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of the Rule of Law.<\/p>\n

Also Read: Former CM, Now Advocate? Inside the BCI Notice Questioning Mamata Banerjee’s Appearance in Advocate Robes in Calcutta HC<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for Lawyers<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court held that professional competence and public confidence require more than disciplinary rules and procedures. It noted that although considerable attention is given to legal education before enrolment, there is a “glaring dearth in institutionalised learning for advocates after enrolment”.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that law is continuously evolving. Statutes are amended, regulatory frameworks change, constitutional doctrine develops, and judicial precedents reshape legal understanding. The increasing use of technology in legal practice and the growing complexity of commercial and financial transactions make it necessary for advocates to remain updated and professionally equipped.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to the practice in advanced jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, and Australia, where structured professional development and continuing legal education are treated as essential elements of professional regulation. In many American jurisdictions, advocates are required to earn Mandatory CLE credits to maintain their licence to practise. The Court also referred to the 184th Report of the Law Commission of India and the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2003, both of which had recognised the importance of CLE, specialised training, and professional competence. Although the proposed amendments did not become law, the concerns underlying them remained important.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that Indian lawyers should develop a model of continuing legal education suited to Indian legal practice. Such education should not be seen as a mere regulatory obligation but as a professional commitment to excellence and service. It also highlighted the importance of transmitting the profession’s unwritten traditions and values to younger advocates.<\/p>\n

“Professional conduct and competency is shaped not only by real-time practice, but also through long-established conventions of fairness, collaboration, courtesy, respect for courts, and service to clients. These time-tested practices constitute the cultural capital of the Bar and must consciously be preserved and passed on through structured mentoring and training programmes.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court further observed that reducing pendency is not the responsibility of the judiciary alone. The Bar is an equal institutional partner in the administration of justice. Although the Bar and Bench are frequently described as the “two wheels of the chariot of justice”, the Bar is rarely called upon to share responsibility for reducing delays. The Court asserted that a paradigm shift was necessary and that tackling pendency must become a collaborative mission of the Bench and the Bar.<\/p>\n

The Court suggested that episodic seminars and conferences should give way to “future continuous” learning. It proposed the establishment of a full-time NLA for lawyers, similar to the National Judicial Academy for Judges. Such an institution could provide post-enrolment structured learning, improve advocacy and ethical standards, strengthen technological adaptability, and support long-term professional development.<\/p>\n

The Court directed the BCI to constitute a team consisting of senior and junior lawyers as well as experts in establishing academic institutions. The team was to consider, discuss, and evolve the proposal for establishing an NLA. The Court expressed hope that the BCI would reflect seriously on these issues and inform the Court of its decision.<\/p>\n

Also Read: “Advocate cannot plead as petitioner in PIL to advance cause of clients”: Allahabad HC dismisses PIL seeking natural gas supply connection for Firozabad Industries<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Decision<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court directed the BCI to undertake “a comprehensive performance audit of the disciplinary mechanisms administered by it and the State Bar Councils”<\/span> under the Advocates Act. It directed the BCI to constitute a committee, obtain an objective assessment of its self-regulatory and disciplinary functions, consider the report, and file an affidavit setting out the action proposed or taken.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court, holding that inclusion of appellant’s name in Caution List was impermissible<\/p>\n

Also Read: “Tarnishing the Profession”: SC condemns Barabanki Bar Members for Attacking Advocate Representing Accused in Toll Plaza Advocate Assault Case<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Ajay Vijh<\/span> v. Indian Banks Assn.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1295<\/a>, decided on 7-7-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR with Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Mr. Sunil Murarka, Ms. Neha Agrawal and Mr. Siddhant Sahay, Advs.<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Aman Gahlot, Adv. Ms. Isha Gaur, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Azal Aekram, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, AOR<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court called for a shift from occasional seminars to continuous professional learning and proposed a full-time National Legal Academy to strengthen advocates’ skills, ethics, technological competence, and long-term development.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":389960,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[109456,51197,59811,42285,12141,12381,109458,109455,49919,57325,109457,22514,83619,5363,7272],"class_list":["post-389959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-advocate-negligence","tag-advocates-act-1961","tag-alok-aradhe","tag-article-12","tag-article-226","tag-bar-council-of-india","tag-continuing-legal-education","tag-iba-caution-list","tag-indian-banks-association","tag-justice-pamidighantam-sri-narasimha","tag-professional-blacklisting","tag-professional-misconduct","tag-rbi-guidelines","tag-supreme-court","tag-writ-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"\nSC: Professional Misconduct within BCI's Disciplinary Jurisdiction | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that Professional misconduct falls within the BCI's disciplinary jurisdiction under Advocates Act, 1961.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court's IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that Professional misconduct falls within the BCI's disciplinary jurisdiction under Advocates Act, 1961.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-10T05:00:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court's IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"headline\":\"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court’s IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-10T05:00:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2092,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"advocate negligence\",\"Advocates Act 1961\",\"Alok Aradhe\",\"Article 12\",\"Article 226\",\"Bar Council of India\",\"continuing legal education\",\"IBA Caution List\",\"Indian Banks Association\",\"Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha\",\"professional blacklisting\",\"professional misconduct\",\"RBI Guidelines.\",\"Supreme Court\",\"writ jurisdiction\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC: Professional Misconduct within BCI's Disciplinary Jurisdiction | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-10T05:00:37+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court holds that Professional misconduct falls within the BCI's disciplinary jurisdiction under Advocates Act, 1961.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Professional Misconduct BCI disciplinary jurisdiction\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/10\\\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court’s IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_7\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC: Professional Misconduct within BCI's Disciplinary Jurisdiction | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court holds that Professional misconduct falls within the BCI's disciplinary jurisdiction under Advocates Act, 1961.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court's IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates","og_description":"Supreme Court holds that Professional misconduct falls within the BCI's disciplinary jurisdiction under Advocates Act, 1961.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-10T05:00:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court's IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/"},"author":{"name":"Ritu","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"headline":"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court’s IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates","datePublished":"2026-07-10T05:00:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/"},"wordCount":2092,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp","keywords":["advocate negligence","Advocates Act 1961","Alok Aradhe","Article 12","Article 226","Bar Council of India","continuing legal education","IBA Caution List","Indian Banks Association","Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha","professional blacklisting","professional misconduct","RBI Guidelines.","Supreme Court","writ jurisdiction"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/","name":"SC: Professional Misconduct within BCI's Disciplinary Jurisdiction | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-10T05:00:37+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Supreme Court holds that Professional misconduct falls within the BCI's disciplinary jurisdiction under Advocates Act, 1961.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Professional Misconduct BCI disciplinary jurisdiction"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/10\/sc-professional-misconduct-within-bci-disciplinary-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"From Blacklisting to Reform: Supreme Court’s IBA Caution List Ruling Opens Door to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and National Legal Academy for Advocates"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Professional-Misconduct-BCI-disciplinary-jurisdiction.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389959","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389959"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389959\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":389963,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389959\/revisions\/389963"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/389960"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}