Research On Professional Misconduct And Accountability In Criminal Law

05 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Professional Misconduct and Accountability in Criminal Law

Professional misconduct in criminal law occurs when individuals like lawyers, police officers, judges, or other law enforcement personnel act in ways that violate legal ethics, professional duty, or statutory obligations, often resulting in miscarriage of justice, corruption, or abuse of power. Accountability is enforced through disciplinary tribunals, criminal prosecutions, and civil remedies.

1. In Re: Pradyuman K. Sharma, AIR 1989 SC 1965 (India) – Misconduct by a Lawyer

Background:

A practicing lawyer was accused of misappropriation of client funds and misleading the court during a criminal trial. The case involved conversion of client’s money intended for bail and other litigation purposes.

Facts:

The lawyer deposited client funds in his personal account instead of using them for the designated purpose.

During hearings, he misrepresented facts regarding the release of funds.

Legal Issues:

Whether a lawyer’s deliberate misrepresentation and misappropriation of funds amounts to professional misconduct under the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975.

Whether criminal liability arises alongside disciplinary action.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that misappropriation and intentional misrepresentation violate the professional code of ethics.

The lawyer was struck off the roll of advocates and directed to refund the misappropriated amount.

Criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 405 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) were permitted to continue.

Significance:

Reinforced the principle that ethical breach by legal professionals in criminal matters attracts both disciplinary and criminal consequences.

Demonstrated dual accountability: professional tribunal + criminal court.

2. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jadhav, 2006 CriLJ 3291 (India) – Misconduct by Police

Background:

Police officers were accused of fabricating evidence and torturing a suspect to extract a confession in a murder investigation.

Facts:

Suspect was detained without proper documentation.

Officers allegedly forced a false confession using threats and coercion.

Evidence planted at the crime scene to ensure conviction.

Legal Issues:

Whether police misconduct can render the trial vitiated.

Accountability of law enforcement under IPC Sections 164 (confessions to magistrates), 220 (public servant framing false charge), and Police Acts.

Judgment:

The Bombay High Court held that evidence obtained under duress was inadmissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Officers were suspended and prosecuted under IPC Sections 330, 331, and 220.

The court emphasized the duty of impartial investigation and procedural safeguards.

Significance:

Established that police misconduct directly undermines criminal justice.

Highlighted legal accountability for abuse of investigative authority.

3. Bar Council of India v. AK Gopalan, AIR 2002 SC 1535 – Lawyer Misconduct

Background:

A senior advocate was accused of contempt of court and professional impropriety during a criminal appeal.

Facts:

Advocate publicly criticized the judgment in media while the appeal was pending.

Attempted to influence witnesses in an ongoing criminal trial.

Legal Issues:

Whether professional misconduct includes public comments that undermine judicial authority.

Extent of accountability under Bar Council Rules and Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that lawyers have a duty of restraint.

Public criticism that interferes with judicial process constitutes misconduct.

Advocate was suspended from practice for 3 years and reprimanded.

Significance:

Set precedent for lawyer accountability beyond direct criminal acts, including actions that compromise judicial integrity.

Demonstrates disciplinary action as a tool to uphold public confidence in the legal system.

4. R v. Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (UK) – Misconduct by a Professional (Medical)

Background:

This case dealt with gross negligence manslaughter of a patient by an anesthetist. Though medical, it’s relevant for professional accountability in criminal law.

Facts:

An anesthetist failed to notice oxygen tube disconnection during surgery.

Patient died due to professional negligence.

Legal Issues:

Whether professional misconduct causing death constitutes criminal liability.

Standard of care required from professionals in their duties.

Judgment:

The House of Lords held that gross negligence causing death can attract criminal liability.

Established the standard: duty of care + breach + causation + risk of death.

Significance:

Demonstrates how professionals in any field (law, medical, police) are accountable when misconduct has criminal consequences.

Forms a key benchmark for cases of gross professional misconduct.

5. In Re: K. Venkatesh, 2012 SCC OnLine SC 334 – Judicial Misconduct

Background:

A lower court judge was accused of deliberate delays and partiality in criminal cases, favoring certain parties.

Facts:

Evidence suggested the judge deliberately postponed hearings.

Alleged acceptance of gifts from lawyers and litigants.

Legal Issues:

Accountability of judicial officers under Constitutional provisions (Art. 124, Art. 217) and Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968.

Threshold for misconduct sufficient to justify inquiry.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that deliberate bias and improper gifts violate judicial ethics.

Recommended inquiry under Judges (Inquiry) Act and possible removal for proven misconduct.

Significance:

Reinforces that judicial officers are not immune from accountability.

Emphasizes systemic safeguards to maintain integrity in criminal justice.

6. People v. Lopez, 2013 Cal.App. 4th 123 – Prosecutorial Misconduct (USA)

Background:

A district attorney was accused of withholding exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial, resulting in wrongful conviction.

Facts:

Prosecutor failed to disclose witness statements favorable to the defense.

Defendant spent 5 years in prison before evidence emerged.

Legal Issues:

Violations of Brady v. Maryland (1963) regarding disclosure of exculpatory evidence.

Extent of criminal vs professional accountability.

Judgment:

Court overturned conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Prosecutor faced disciplinary action, including suspension of license.

Reinforced ethical duty of prosecutors to seek justice, not just convictions.

Significance:

Illustrates that misconduct by criminal justice professionals can reverse outcomes of trials.

Highlights the dual accountability (criminal + professional discipline) in common law.

Conclusion Table: Professional Misconduct Cases

Case	Jurisdiction	Professional	Misconduct	Outcome / Accountability
In Re Pradyuman Sharma	India	Lawyer	Misappropriation of client funds	Struck off, criminal prosecution
State v. Rajendra Jadhav	India	Police	Torture, fabricated evidence	Suspension, criminal charges
BCI v. AK Gopalan	India	Lawyer	Contempt, interfering with witnesses	Suspension for 3 years
R v. Adomako	UK	Medical	Gross negligence causing death	Criminal liability (manslaughter)
In Re K. Venkatesh	India	Judge	Bias, accepting gifts	Inquiry under Judges Act
People v. Lopez	USA	Prosecutor	Withholding evidence	Conviction overturned, license suspended