On August 12, 2025, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) issued a 19-page order suspending Advocate Asim Sarode for three months and fining him ₹25,000. His alleged offence: making “disrespectful statements” against the judiciary and certain constitutional functionaries at a Shiv Sena (UBT) event in Mumbai’s Worli on March 18, 2024.
The order, communicated to Sarode more than two months later in November 2025, states that his words had “the effect of lowering the respect and confidence of the public in the judiciary.” The BCMG concluded that as an “officer of the court,” Sarode had violated the dignity of his profession and “created distrust toward the judiciary.”
Yet a close reading of the order and the evidence reveals something much darker — not professional discipline, but a targeted silencing of dissent.
Genesis of the complaint
The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from a complaint filed by Advocate Rajesh Dabholkar, who accused Sarode of delivering a “hate speech” and making sarcastic and contemptuous remarks against the judiciary, the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, and the Governor of Maharashtra during a ‘Janata Nyayalaya’ event held at SVP Stadium, Worli, Mumbai, on March 18, 2024.
In his complaint, Dabholkar alleged that Sarode told the gathering that “the judiciary is under pressure and there is no judiciary left to deliver judgments in favour of the people,” and that he referred to the then Governor as “faltu” (useless). These statements, the complainant argued, were not only “derogatory and defamatory” but amounted to a violation of professional ethics expected from an officer of the court.
After Sarode refused to tender an apology to Dabholkar, who had written to him on March 19, 2024, seeking a retraction, the latter lodged a formal complaint before the BCMG, submitting a video recording of the speech as evidence.
Proceedings before the Bar Council
The BCMG disciplinary committee, after viewing the video and examining written submissions from both sides, observed that Sarode’s remarks were “reprehensible, condemnable, and unbecoming of an advocate”, and had the effect of lowering the respect and confidence of the public in the judiciary and constitutional offices.
Quoting from the order, the Council noted:
“The respondent advocate has created an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect towards the judiciary by making such statements in a public meeting and circulating them on social media. The conduct of the respondent advocate was highly improper, reprehensible, condemnable, and unbecoming of a member of the Bar.”
The committee further held that as an “officer of the court”, an advocate bears a moral and professional duty to maintain faith in the judicial system, even while exercising the right to critique judgments or constitutional functionaries.
While acknowledging that Sarode had been practising for more than two decades and was known for his legal awareness campaigns and social work, the Council concluded that his statements had crossed the line from legitimate criticism to public disparagement. It therefore imposed a three-month suspension instead of a harsher penalty such as permanent debarment, describing the decision as “lenient” given that this was his first recorded instance of misconduct.
“We are satisfied that Advocate Sarode has committed misconduct by making certain disrespectful statements towards the judiciary. However, since he has been involved in social awareness activities for over two decades, the Committee finds it inappropriate to impose the harsh penalty of permanent debarment,” the order said.
Sarode’s defence and reaction
As per Free Press Journal, in his written response, Advocate Asim Sarode denied committing any misconduct and maintained that his statements constituted fair and democratic criticism, not contempt or defamation.
He argued that he had not used any unconstitutional or abusive language against the judiciary or constitutional offices and that his remarks had been “misinterpreted by weak-minded individuals.”, according to Indian Express.
On the specific allegation that he called the Governor “faltu,” Sarode clarified that the term was used in a colloquial, non-defamatory sense and that former Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari—who was no longer in office at the time—could have initiated action personally if he felt defamed. He also questioned the complainant’s locus standi, pointing out that Dabholkar had no standing to file a defamation claim on behalf of the Governor.
Sarode further said that his comment on Assembly Speaker Rahul Narvekar—who had in January 2024 upheld the Eknath Shinde faction as the “real Shiv Sena”—was an analytical critique based on the Speaker’s order and not an insult. “Criticism of a constitutional decision cannot be equated with contempt,” he maintained in his submissions.
After receiving the BCMG’s order, Sarode told reporters in Pune, according to Hindustan Times, that he would be challenging the decision before the Bar Council of India in Delhi.
“I disagree with the order and will challenge it. As someone who respects the Constitution, I believe it is my duty to highlight flaws in the system,” he said, as per the report of HT. He also alleged political motivation behind the complaint, describing Dabholkar as a BJP sympathizer close to party leader Ashish Shelar. “It seems there is a system behind him,” Sarode said.
Political and legal context
The suspension has sparked controversy in Maharashtra’s legal and political circles, particularly given Sarode’s known proximity to the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction led by Uddhav Thackeray.
Notably, the BCMG’s order reached Sarode just days before the Supreme Court’s scheduled November 12, 2025 hearing in Uddhav Thackeray’s petition challenging the Election Commission’s decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allot it the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol.
Sarode claimed that he had repeatedly contacted the Bar Council between August and October to inquire about the decision, but received no communication until Monday, raising questions about the timing of the delivery. “Many have expressed doubts about why the order was sent now,” he said, as per IE.
Free speech, professional ethics, and judicial criticism
The case has reignited debate on the delicate balance between freedom of speech and professional ethics for advocates. Under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, professional misconduct includes acts “unbecoming of an advocate” or those that bring disrepute to the legal profession.
While the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed in cases such as In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) and Prashant Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2020) that lawyers enjoy the right to fair criticism of the judiciary, the Court has also emphasized that such criticism cannot “erode public confidence in the institution of justice.”
The BCMG’s order draws upon that principle, suggesting that Sarode’s remarks—particularly made from a political platform—crossed from legitimate dissent into territory that could “undermine the authority of the judiciary.”
When critique becomes ‘misconduct’
Timing and selective enforcement: The suspension order was passed on August 12, 2025 but communicated only when Sarode received it much later (in early November 2025). Sarode raises the spectre of political timing, noting the order was sent ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on November 12, 2025 regarding the dispute between Shiv Sena factions (the Eknath Shinde vs Uddhav Thackeray question). The sense is strong: a lawyer aligned with one political faction is disciplined for speech made at an event pro-that faction, while other lawyers with arguably more egregious public speeches face little or no sanction.
Discrepancy between criticism and sanction: While lawyers indeed have an obligation under the Advocates Act to maintain dignity of the profession and the judiciary, they also enjoy freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)). The committee’s decision acknowledges Sarode’s social work and long practice, yet still disciplines him for making harsh remarks in a political-event context. The question arises: Is this genuinely misconduct or merely punishment of unpopular political speech? From a doctrinal standpoint, the council’s reasoning conflates critique of institutions with disrespect. In doing so, the judgement risks chilling legitimate debate about judicial reform and accountability.
Uneven accountability: What about lawyers who make hate or sexist or discriminatory speeches? It is here the real injustice becomes stark. The immediate sanction of Sarode appears disproportionate when seen in the context of lawyers and advocates who have made hate-speech, misogynistic or communal remarks, still un-punished.
- According to media report of 2015, the lawyers A.P. Singh and M.L. Sharma, who represented convicts in the Delhi gang-rape case, infamously told a BBC documentary that they would “set their daughter on fire” if she behaved “improperly” and that “a decent girl won’t roam after 9 p.m.” The Bar Council of India promised action, yet a decade later, both continue to practice.
- In 2021, Supreme Court advocate Ashwini Upadhyay was arrested for leading an anti-Muslim sloganeering march at Jantar Mantar but was released on bail within a day; there has been no disciplinary order from the BCI since.
The institutional interest vs free speech tension: The disciplinary order rests on an argument that the comments “erode public confidence” in the judiciary and therefore merit sanction. But this criterion is vague and open to misuse. If the standard becomes “publicly criticise the judiciary at one’s professional peril,” then the risk is that lawyers will shy away from any commentary—even legitimate critique of courts or constitutional offices—for fear of disciplinary action. That outcome would undermine free speech, not protect professional dignity.
Conclusion: A mirror to institutional hypocrisy
The punishment of Asim Sarode is not about ethics; it is about silencing. It reflects a system that enforces conformity under the guise of decorum. When lawyers who demonise women or minorities continue to practice freely, but a lawyer questioning judicial subservience is suspended, the disciplinary process becomes a political weapon.
Sarode’s case reveals a troubling truth: India’s legal institutions are quicker to defend their ego than their integrity. By branding dissent as misconduct, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa has betrayed not just one lawyer, but the very spirit of the Constitution it claims to uphold.
Related:
Counting the Caged: What India’s prison data refuses to see
Invisible Assaults: How India’s crime data erases violence against women and children