from other countries with different ideas and different social customs and imposed on the Bar ha India mainly by English Judges. We do not agree, because this Act is not concerned with professional misconduct. That is dealt with by the Bar Councils Act which was passed in the same year (1926). The Bar Councils Act makes no modification in the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court or of the sense in which professional misconduct had been understood throughout India up to that time. The. only Indian decision which Mr. G, could quote in his favour was Muthoo Lail v. Budree Pershad (1). But that was not a case in which disciplinary action was being taken against a legal practitioner for professional misconduct. The question there was whether an, agreement which might be objectionable on the ground of professional misconduct could be enforced by suit. Two Bombay decisions on which Mr. G relies are to be distinguished in the same way : Shivram Hari v. Arjun(2) and Parshram Vaman v. Hiraman Fatu(3). Whether these cases were rightly decided or whether they would also be hit on the ground of public policy as Chitty J. thought of a similar matter in the Punjab Record case, is something which does not arise for decision here. It is enough to say that those cases are distinguishable on the around that the Judges there were not considering a case of disciplinary action. Mr. G relied on the practice in some of the American States where an agreement by an attorney to purchase part of Page 7 of 8 http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the subject-matter of the litigation is upheld. The class of cases to which he refers are summarised in a footnote to McMicken v. Perin(1). He relied on this to show that contracts of this kind cannot be dismissed as reprehensible or morally wrong. We do not propose to enter into this because what may be (1) I N. W. P. H. C. R. I. (2) 1. L. R. 5 Bom. 258. (3) I. L. R. 8 BOm. 413. (4) 15 Law. Edn. 504 & 505. harmless in one country may not be so in another. We will however pause to observe that Rattigan J. collected a large volume of ’American authority at pages 318-321 of his opinion in Ganga Ram v. Devi Das(1) to show that even in those States where this is permitted it is regretted and frowned upon. For historical reasons obtaining there, the practice may have come to stay however much it is regretted; but in 1937 the American Bar Association adopted the following canon of Professional Ethics: "The lawyer should not purchase any interest in the subject-matter of the litigation which he is conducting." In India history tells the converse tale. We see no reason why we should import what many feel if; a mistake, even in the country of its origin, from another country and seek to perpetuate their error here when a sound and healthy tradition to the contrary already exists in our Bar. The reasons for exacting these high standards in this country, where ignorance and illiteracy are the rule, are even more important than they are in England where the general level of education is so much higher. We hold that the conduct of Mr. G amounts to professional misconduct and as it was committed in the face of the Bombay view expressed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in 1901 disciplinary action is called for. Now had Mr. G been as restrained and objective in his petition under article 32 as he was while arguing the case before us, we might have considered a warning enough seeing that this is the first time this question has been considered in this Court, but, in view of his personal attacks on the learned Chief Justice in his petition where he has questioned his good faith and attributed malice to him, we are not able to deal with him as lightly. We therefore direct that he be suspended from practising in this Court for a period which will expire on the same date as his period of suspension in-the Bombay High Court. There will be no order about costs. Order accordingly. (1) 61 P. R. (of 1907), P. 280. Page 8 of 8