2004 (4) TMI 577 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala forbidding a lawyer from appearing, acting or pleading in any court till he got himself purged of the Contempt by an order of the appropriate court constitutionally valid?

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules.
2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Usurpation of powers of adjudication and punishment from the Bar Councils.
4. Principles of natural justice and automatic application of Rule 11.
5. Contempt jurisdiction of the court.
6. Distinction between contempt of court and misconduct by an advocate.
7. Applicability of the Advocates Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Validity of Rule 11 under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules:
The petition challenges Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules, which prohibits an advocate found guilty of contempt from appearing in court until the contempt is purged. This rule was previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Pravin C. Shah Vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali and Another and Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and Another.

2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that Rule 11 violates Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession) of the Constitution. It was contended that the rule impinges on the powers of the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act and violates principles of natural justice due to its automatic application without further hearing.

3. Usurpation of Powers of Adjudication and Punishment from the Bar Councils:
The petitioner argued that the Bar Council of India, under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, has the authority to punish advocates for misconduct. Therefore, Rule 11, which imposes a prohibition on practice following a contempt decision, usurps this power.

4. Principles of Natural Justice and Automatic Application of Rule 11:
The petitioner contended that Rule 11 violates principles of natural justice as it does not provide an opportunity for further hearing before imposing a prohibition on practice. The court held that Rule 11 is legislative in character and its validity has been previously upheld. The court further noted that principles of natural justice cannot be stretched too far and must be balanced with statutory provisions.

5. Contempt Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court discussed the inherent power of the courts to punish for contempt, as recognized universally and under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the law of contempt is governed by statutes like the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the inherent powers of the courts to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the judiciary.

6. Distinction Between Contempt of Court and Misconduct by an Advocate:
The court distinguished between punishment for contempt and punishment for misconduct. It held that while the Bar Council has authority over professional misconduct, the courts retain the power to regulate conduct within the court, including prohibiting an advocate from practicing until they purge themselves of contempt.

7. Applicability of the Advocates Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court noted that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which provides the right to practice, has not yet been brought into force. Section 34 empowers the High Court to make rules regarding the conditions under which an advocate can practice. The court also discussed relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow for punishment of contemptuous conduct.

8. Validity of Rule 11 under Article 12 of the Constitution:
The court held that Rule 11 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Article 12. The court emphasized that Rule 11 concerns the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts and is not subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules, dismissing the writ petition. The court concluded that Rule 11 does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not ultra vires Article 12. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →