Supreme Court Bar Association - Case Law

THREAT TO ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
PETITIONER:
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/1998
BENCH:
S.C. AGRAWAL, G.N. RAY, A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA,S. RAJENDRA BABU
CITATION : AIR 1998 SC 1895
FACTS :
In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584, the Supreme Court found the
Contemner, an advocate, guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court for
having interfered with and "obstructing the course of justice by trying to
threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful
and threatening language", While awarding punishment, keeping in view the
gravity of the contumacious conduct of the contemner, the court also
suspended the contemnor from practising as an advocate for a period of
three years from the date of judgement with the consequence that all posts
held by him in his capacity as an advocate, shall stand vacated by him
forthwith.
Aggrieved by the direction that the "Contemner shall stand suspended from
practising as an Advocate for a period of three years" issued by this Court
by invoking powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court Bar Association, through its Honorary Secretary, has filed
this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
ISSUES :
whether the punishment for established contempt of Court committed by an

Advocate can include punishment to debar the concerned advocate from
practice by suspending his licence (sanad) for a specified period, in
exercise of its powers under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution of India
HOLDINGS :
(a) the jurisdiction and powers of this Court under Article

142 which are supplementary in nature and are provided
to do complete justice in any matter, are independent
of the jurisdiction and powers of this Court under
Article 129 which cannot be trammeled in any way by any
statutory provision including the provisions of the
Advocates Act or the contempt jurisdiction of the court
including of this Court and the contempt of Courts Act,
1971 being a statute cannot denude, restrict or limit
the powers of this Court to take action for contempt
under Article 129.Suspending the licence to practice of
any professional like a lawyer, doctor, chartered
accountant etc. When such a professional is found
guilty of committing contempt of court, for any
specified period, is not a recognised or accepted
punishment which a court of record either under the
common law or under the statutory law can impose, on a
contemner, in addition to any of the other recognised
punishments.
(b) The suspension of an Advocate from practice and his

removal from the State roll of advocates are both
punishments specifically provided for under the
Advocates Act, 1961, for proven "professional
misconduct' of an advocate. While exercising its
contempt jurisdiction under Article 129, the only cause
or matter before this Court is regarding commission of
contempt of court. There is no cause of professional
misconduct, properly so called, This Court, therefore,
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 129
cannot take over the jurisdiction of the disciplinary
committee of the Bar Council of the State or the Bar
Council of India to punish an advocate by suspending
his licence, which punishment can only be imposed after
a finding of 'professional misconduct' is recorded in
the manner prescribed under the Advocates Act and the
Rules framed thereunder.
(c) In a given case, an advocate found guilty of committing
contempt of court may also be guilty of committing
"professional misconduct" depending upon the gravity or
nature of his contumacious conduct, but the two
jurisdictions are separate and distinct and exercisable
by different forums by following separate and distinct
procedures. The power to punish an Advocate, by
suspending his licence or by removal of his name from
the roll of the State bar Council, for proven
professional misconduct, vests exclusively in the
statutory authorities created under the Advocates Act,
1961, while the jurisdiction to punish him for
committing contempt of court vests exclusively in the
courts.

Supreme Court Bar Association - Case Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Bar Association - Case Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Bar Association - Case Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THREAT TO ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/1998

CITATION : AIR 1998 SC 1895

whether the punishment for established contempt of Court committed by an

(a) the jurisdiction and powers of this Court under Article

(b) The suspension of an Advocate from practice and his

You might also like