1998 (4) TMI 531 - SC - Indian Laws

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? Held that - It must be remembered that wider the amplitude of its power under Article 142 the greater is the need of care for this Court to see that the power is used with restraint without pushing back the limits of the constitution so as to function within the bounds of its own jurisdiction. To the extent this Court makes the statutory authorities and other organs of the State perform their duties in accordance with law its role is unexceptionable but it is not permissible or the Court to take over the role of the statutory bodies or other organs of the State and perform their functions. Upon the basis of what we have said above we answer the question posed in the earlier part of this order in the negative. The writ petition succeeds and is ordered accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Supreme Court can suspend an advocate's license to practice as a punishment for contempt of court.
2. The extent of the Supreme Court's powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.
3. The jurisdiction of the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Whether the Supreme Court can suspend an advocate's license to practice as a punishment for contempt of court:
The Supreme Court examined whether it could suspend an advocate's license as a form of punishment for contempt of court. The Court referenced the case of Vinay Chandra Mishra, where such a suspension was previously ordered. The Court concluded that suspending an advocate's license is not a recognized punishment under common law or statutory law for contempt of court. The power to suspend or revoke an advocate's license is vested exclusively in the Bar Councils as per the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court stated, "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 recognized 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 recognized punishments."

2. The extent of the Supreme Court's powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution:
The Court discussed its powers under Articles 129 and 142, noting that while these articles grant significant authority, they do not permit the Court to assume jurisdiction that is expressly vested in another statutory body. The Court emphasized, "The plenary powers of this court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the court and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes though are not limited by those statutes." However, it clarified that these powers cannot be used to "supplant" substantive law or to achieve indirectly what cannot be achieved directly. The Court concluded that it cannot suspend an advocate's license under Article 142 while dealing with a contempt case, as this would bypass the due process established under the Advocates Act.

3. The jurisdiction of the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961:
The Court reviewed the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, which establish a detailed procedure for dealing with professional misconduct by advocates. The Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Bar Councils to suspend or revoke an advocate's license after a proper inquiry. The Court highlighted, "After the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961, matters connected with the enrollment of advocates as also their punishment for professional misconduct is governed by the provisions of that Act only." The Court stressed that it cannot take over the jurisdiction of the Bar Councils in matters of professional misconduct, which must be handled as per the procedure prescribed by the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that it does not have the authority to suspend an advocate's license to practice as a punishment for contempt of court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution. This power is vested exclusively in the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court overruled the decision in Vinay Chandra Mishra's case to the extent that it allowed the suspension of an advocate's license for contempt of court. The writ petition was allowed, affirming that the Bar Councils must handle cases of professional misconduct following the due process established by the Advocates Act.

← Previous Next →