The Karnataka High Court dismissed a complaint filed against Bengaluru-based Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari before the State Bar Council, noting that it was filed with mala fide intentions with the purpose of vengeance.
The order was passed on November 7 by a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna after the senior counsel approached the High Court to quash the complaint, and made public this week.
“The complaint itself ought not to have been entertained by the Bar Council…. to entertain a complaint against an Advocate, the Bar Council must have reason to believe that the Advocate is guilty of misconduct,” Justice Nagaprasanna said in his order.
“A perusal of the complaint would clearly indicate that it was a product of mala fides or suffering from want of bona fides… To wreak vengeance, the complaint is registered before the Bar Council, without having any locus to do so, as there is no contract or a client-advocate relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent (complainant),” said Justice Nagaprasanna.
Kothari was requested by a company to serve as general counsel to its Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which she stated was in her personal capacity as an external member, not as a senior advocate.
In May 2019, a sexual harassment complaint was filed against an employee of the company, and after hearing his response, an inquiry and hearing of the parties were conducted two months later. The employee was dismissed in August 2019 following the committee’s deliberations.
The employee then challenged the decision before the assistant labour commissioner, which ruled against the Committee’s finding and made observations against Kothari. She also moved the High Court to have those remarks removed in 2023.
Story continues below this ad
In the interim, the employee filed a complaint with the Bar Council against Kothari, alleging partiality and asserting that her brother had previously filed a caveat on behalf of the company, thereby creating a conflict of interest.
Kothari approached the Karnataka High Court, as this complaint was still active. The counsel arguing on her behalf pointed out that, in her individual capacity as an external member of the ICC, Kothari could not be brought before the Bar Council.
It was also pointed out that the complainant had already availed himself of his remedy before the Labour Commissioner and could not allege misconduct by an advocate merely because the Committee had rendered findings that were subsequently found to be wrong.
On the other hand, opposing counsel argued that she was appointed as an external ICC member solely for this complaint, in furtherance of the company’s plan to terminate the complainant.