Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

76. This Court is indeed the final appellate authority under Section 38 of the Act but we are not persuaded to agree with the view that this Court can in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, under Section 38 of the Act, impose one of the punishments, prescribed under that Act, while punishing a contemner advocate in a contempt case. 'Professional misconduct' of the advocate concerned is not a matter directly in issue in the contempt of court case. While dealing with the contempt of court case, this court is obliged to examine whether the conduct complained of amounts to contempt of court and if the answer is in the affirmative, then to sentence the contemner for contempt of court by imposing any of the recognised and accepted punishments for committing contempt of court. Keeping in view the elaborate procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder it follows that a complaint of professional misconduct is required to be tried by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council, like the trial of a criminal case by a court of law and an advocate may be punished on the basis of evidence led before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council after being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The delinquent advocate may be suspended from practice for a specified period or even removed from the rolls of the advocates or imposed any other punishment as provided under the Act. The inquiry is a detailed and elaborate one and is not of a summary nature. It is, therefore, not permissible for this court to punish an advocate for "professional misconduct" in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by converting itself as the statutory body exercising "original jurisdiction". Indeed, if in a given case the Bar Council concerned on being apprised of the contumacious and blameworthy conduct of the advocate by the High Court or this Court does not take any action against the said advocate, this court may well have the jurisdiction in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 38 of the Act read with Article 142 of the Constitution to proceed suo moto and send for the records from the Bar Council and pass appropriate orders against the advocate concerned. In an appropriate case, this Court may consider the exercise of appellate jurisdiction even suo moto provided there is some cause pending before the Bar Council concerned, and the Bar Council does "not act" or fails to act, by sending for the record of that cause and pass appropriate orders.

55. Shri Mohan Parasaran learned senior counsel has relied on the matter of Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr. (supra) in which the question was whether an Advocate found guilty of contempt of court can appear in court until and unless he purges himself of contempt, the court held that an Advocate found guilty of contempt of court must purge himself before being permitted to appear. Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under section 34 (1) of Advocates Act reads thus:

59. In Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, (supra) vires of Rule 11 of the rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under section 34(1) of Advocates Act came to be impinged which debarred Advocate found guilty of contempt of court from appearing, acting or pleading in court till he got purged himself of the contempt. The court considered the Contempt of Courts Act, Advocates Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, and significantly distinction between Contempt of Court and misconduct by an Advocate and observed:

64. Reliance was placed on the decision Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (supra) by the respondents. This Court dealt with the question when advocate has been convicted for criminal contempt as to the sanctions/punishment that may be imposed in addition to punishments that may be imposed for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court held that regulation of right of appearance in courts is within jurisdiction of courts and not Bar Councils, thus, Court can bar Advocate convicted for contempt from appearing/pleading before any court for an appropriate period of time, till convicted advocate purges himself of the contempt, even in absence of suspension or termination of enrolment/right to practice/licence to practice. Secondly, this Court also held that bar on appearance/ pleadings in any court till contempt is purged can be imposed by the Court in terms of the High Court Rules framed under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, if such Rules exist. However, even if there is no such rule framed under said Section 34, unless convicted advocate purges himself of contempt or is permitted by Court, Court may debar an Advocate as conviction results in debarring such advocate from appearing/pleading in court, even in absence of suspension or termination of enrolment/right to practise/licence to practise. This Court held thus: