Contempt Powers & Advocates' Discipline•3 min read•[1998] 2 SCR 795 : (1998) 4 SCC 409

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another

Bench: Constitution Bench (S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.)
Contempt of Court & Miscellaneous Applications
Read the full judgment on Indian Kanoon
Core Legal Ratio Decidendi

"The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt does not include suspending an advocate's licence to practise, which belongs to the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act; Article 142 cannot be used to supplant substantive law, though the Court may bar a contemner advocate from appearing before it until he purges the contempt."

I
Step 1

Issues Before the Court

  1. (i)

    Whether the Supreme Court, in its contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 read with Article 142, can suspend an advocate's licence to practise as part of the punishment for contempt?

  2. (ii)

    What are the limits of the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142?

R
Step 2

Law & Rules Applicable

  1. (i)

    Constitution of India, Article 129 (the Supreme Court as a court of record, with power to punish for contempt of itself) and Article 142 (complete justice).

  2. (ii)

    Advocates Act, 1961, Sections 35, 36 and 38 (disciplinary powers of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India, with appeal to the Supreme Court).

  3. (iii)

    Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 (punishment for contempt); and In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra.

A
Step 3

Application to Facts & Circumstances

In In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, the Court had found an advocate guilty of criminal contempt and, besides a suspended sentence of imprisonment, suspended him from practising as an advocate for three years. The Supreme Court Bar Association challenged that part of the punishment under Article 32, and the question was referred to a Constitution Bench.

Writing for the Constitution Bench, Anand J. held that the power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is inherent in a court of record, but that suspension of an advocate's licence to practise is not a recognised punishment for contempt. The power to suspend or remove an advocate for professional misconduct vests in the statutory authorities created under the Advocates Act, 1961, subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Article 142 cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to a case, or to achieve indirectly what cannot be done directly by ignoring the statutory provisions on the subject. The Court could, however, refer an advocate's conduct to the Bar Council, and could prevent a contemner advocate from appearing before it until he purged himself of the contempt, which is different from suspending his licence.

C
Step 4

Conclusion & Ruling

  1. (i)

    The writ petition succeeded. Vinay Chandra Mishra was overruled to the extent that it suspended the advocate's licence to practise in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

  2. (ii)

    The Supreme Court cannot, under Articles 129 and 142, suspend an advocate's licence as a punishment for contempt; that power belongs to the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act.

  3. (iii)

    Article 142 supplements but cannot supplant the substantive law; the Court may nonetheless bar a contemner advocate from appearing before it until the contempt is purged.

Authorities Cited

Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.

  1. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, [1995] 2 SCR 638 : (1995) 2 SCC 584Case brief →Full text of In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra on Indian Kanoon
← All case law briefs