Indefeasible right of cross-examination in disciplinary adjudications

Natural justice mandates that an advocate facing disciplinary allegations must be afforded an adequate, real, and meaningful opportunity to defend themselves, which fundamentally encompasses the indefeasible right to cross-examine the complainant. The Disciplinary Committee cannot establish culpability or impose sanctions solely by placing reliance on uncorroborated allegations contained in a written complaint without examining the complainant on oath. Depriving an advocate of the opportunity to test the veracity, consistency, and motives of the complainant through cross-examination strikes at the root of procedural fairness, rendering any consequent findings of professional misconduct legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside on grounds of procedural defect. (Monty Goyal Vs Navrang Singh | 2026 INSC 94).