Supreme Court: Ajay Vijh v Indian Banks Assn Advocate Discipline Ruling

• The Supreme Court set aside an advocate's inclusion in a bank's Caution List, holding that disciplinary jurisdiction lies with Bar Councils.
• The court emphasized the importance of Continuing Legal Education for advocates to maintain professional integrity.
• The decision underscores the independence of the legal profession and its role in upholding the rule of law.

Disciplinary jurisdiction over an advocate's conduct lies exclusively with the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961.

A dispute over an advocate's inclusion in a bank's Caution List led to the Supreme Court of India's decision in Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Assn. The case, decided on July 7, 2026, involved Canara Bank removing an empanelled advocate from its panel after he provided a negligent title opinion. The bank further reported the advocate to the Indian Banks Association (IBA), which placed him on a list of entities involved in fraud. However, the Supreme Court set aside the inclusion of the advocate in the Caution List, holding that it was not an egregious case of fraud or dishonesty. Instead, the court found that disciplinary jurisdiction over the advocate's conduct lies exclusively with the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Assn. has significant implications for the independence of the Bar and self-regulation within the legal profession. The court emphasized that the Caution List, as conceived under Reserve Bank of India Guidelines, is intended to address egregious cases of fraud, dishonesty, and criminality. However, it held that bona fide errors of professional judgment do not warrant inclusion on such a list. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed the importance of Continuing Legal Education for advocates, highlighting its role in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Assn. sends a clear message to lawyers and clients alike: disciplinary jurisdiction over an advocate's conduct lies exclusively with the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the independence of the legal profession, which is essential for upholding the rule of law. The decision also highlights the need for advocates to prioritize Continuing Legal Education and adhere to professional standards, even in the face of reputational consequences.

Lawyers should be aware that disciplinary jurisdiction over an advocate's conduct lies exclusively with the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961, and not with banks or other third-party entities.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court judgment