The Supreme Court on 29 April, 2026, reserved its verdict on a lawyer's urgent plea challenging a caution list issued by the Indian Banks' Association (IBA). The list had labelled him a fraud enabler due to alleged negligence, leading to a debate on professional accountability.
Bench Concludes Hearing:
A bench led by Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe concluded arguments in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash the list in writ proceedings.
The dispute began with Syndicate Bank (now merged into Canara Bank). The bank accused the lawyer, who was its panel advocate, of helping a borrower commit fraud. It said he gave a faulty search and title report for a property used as loan security. He allegedly failed to notice that a part of the property had already been sold, which put the bank at risk of financial loss.
The lawyer challenged the February 05, 2020 caution list, where his name was listed at serial number 781 on the IBA website. He asked for his name to be removed and for directions to stop the IBA from sharing the list with banks and financial institutions where he worked as a panel lawyer or asking them to blacklist him.
High Court Dismissal:
The IBA argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because it is not covered under Article 12 as it is a private body. The High Court accepted this argument and dismissed the petition, leading the lawyer to approach the Supreme Court.
In his SLP, the lawyer said his inclusion violated the RBI’s July 2009 Procedural Guidelines for Reporting Names of Third Parties involved in Frauds to IBA. He claimed he was listed without notice, without a hearing, and without a proper fraud investigation. He also said this led to termination of his services by other banks, causing financial loss, reputational harm, and violation of his rights.
During the hearing, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Maninder Singh argued strongly that the list affects the lawyer’s right to practice. He said only the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the authority under the Advocates Act to take action against lawyers for misconduct. Advocate Radhika Gautam for the BCI and Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave for the Union Law Ministry supported this view.
Concerns on Disciplinary System:
Justice Narasimha also questioned how effective the BCI and State Bar Councils are in dealing with professional misconduct.
After hearing all sides, the Court reserved its judgment.
Case Details: Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association
