Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2006
Decided On : 05-07-2016
(B) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 38 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 15 and 19 – Constitution of India – Article 129 read with Article 142 – Contempt of court and professional misconduct by Advocate – While in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Apex Court cannot take over jurisdiction of disciplinary committee of Bar Council and it is for Bar Council to punish the Advocate by debarring him from practice or suspending his licence as may be warranted on the basis of his having been found guilty of contempt, if Bar Council fails to take action, Apex Court could invoke its appellate power under Section 38 of Advocates Act – In a given case, Apex court or High Court can prevent contemnor Advocate from appearing before it or other courts till he purges himself of contempt which is different from suspending or revoking licence or debarring him to practice. (Para 25)
(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 15 and 19 – Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 24-A, 35 and 38 – Contempt of court and professional misconduct by Advocate – Appellant did appear before Court and used language which was contemptuous in nature – Averments regarding the complaints cannot be a defence for appellant – Even if averments about complaints are correct, then also, appellant cannot use such contemptuous language in Court against Presiding Judge – High Court has rightly convicted appellant after having come to conclusion that denial of incidents and allegations of malafides against complainant Judge had been made by appellant to save himself from consequences of contempt proceedings – Appellant had refused to tender apology for his conduct – He had no regards for majesty of law – Appellant held guilty of criminal contempt. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 30)
(D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 15 and 19 – Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 24-A, 35 and 38 – Contempt of court and professional misconduct by Advocate – Court not only has right but also obligation to protect itself and save purity of its proceedings from being polluted by barring Advocate concerned from appearing before courts for an appropriate period of time – In spite of direction of High Court as long back as more than ten years, no action is shown to have been taken by Bar Council – As such, Apex Court has to exercise appellate jurisdiction under Advocates Act in view of proved misconduct calling for disciplinary action – Conviction and sentence awarded by High Court to appellant upheld – Sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant set aside in view of his advanced age but sentence of fine and default sentence upheld – Enrollment of appellant will stand suspended for two years – As a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct, licence of appellant will remain suspended for further five years. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30, 45, 47, 48 and 49)
(E) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 24-A – Contempt of court and professional misconduct by Advocate – Unless a person purges himself of contempt or is permitted by Court, conviction results in debarring an Advocate from appearing in court even in absence of suspension or termination of licence to practice – Directions of High Court in impugned order to the effect that appellant shall not be permitted to appear in District courts until he purges himself of contempt upheld.. (Para 44)
(F) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 35 – Professional misconduct by Advocates – There is urgent need to review provisions of Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanism for legal profession and other incidental issues in consultation with all concerned – Legal profession being most important component of justice delivery system, it must continue to perform its significant role and regulatory mechanism and should not be seen to be wanting in taking prompt action against any malpractice – Law Commission of India requested to go into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in consultation with all concerned at an early date. (Paras 50 and 52)
Facts of Case:
Instant appeal is preferred under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against judgment and order delivered by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Contempt Petition whereby High Court found appellant guilty of Criminal Contempt for intimidating and threatening a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in his Court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of two months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant to undergo further imprisonment of 2 weeks. High Court further directed Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to consider facts contained in complaint of Civil Judge and earlier contempt referred to in judgment and to initiate appropriate proceedings against appellant for professional misconduct.
Findings of Court:
What is permissible for this Court by virtue of statutory appellate power under Section 38 of Advocates Act is also permissible to a High Court under Article 226 of Constitution in appropriate cases on failure of Bar Council to take action after its attention is invited to misconduct.
We request the Law Commission of India to go into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in consultation with all concerned at an early date. We hope Government of India will consider taking further appropriate steps in light of report of Law Commission within six months thereafter. Central Government may file an appropriate affidavit in this regard within one month after expiry of one year.
Result – Appeal disposed of with directions.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Court has both the right and the obligation to protect its proceedings and maintain the integrity and purity of the judicial process. This includes taking necessary measures to prevent misconduct and pollution of judicial proceedings (!) .
A contempt of court involves considerations such as the likelihood of interference with the administration of justice and the culpability of the offender. The intention behind the misconduct is a significant factor in determining the appropriate punishment, which may range from reprimand to imprisonment (!) .
The jurisdiction to deal with contempt of court and professional misconduct by advocates is distinct. While the Court can exercise its contempt powers and prevent an advocate from appearing before it, the disciplinary actions such as suspension or debarment are within the purview of the Bar Council. If the Bar Council fails to act on misconduct, the Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary measures (!) (!) .
An advocate’s misconduct, especially contemptuous language or behavior in court, can lead to criminal contempt proceedings. The Court may convict the advocate and impose penalties, including imprisonment, fines, or suspension of practice. The severity of the punishment depends on the nature of the misconduct and the advocate’s conduct, remorse, and remorseful conduct (!) .
The Court or the High Court has the authority to restrict an advocate’s appearance or practice until they purge themselves of contempt. This restriction is different from suspension or revocation of license to practice, which is a disciplinary action taken by the Bar Council (!) .
The process of purging oneself of contempt involves genuine remorse, seeking pardon, and demonstrating a sincere intention not to repeat the misconduct. Mere payment of fines or undergoing punishment does not automatically exonerate or purge the guilt of contempt. The advocate must take proactive steps such as expressing remorse and seeking forgiveness from the court (!) .
The Court recognizes the importance of maintaining high professional standards and discipline among advocates to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and the justice system. There is a need for continuous review and strengthening of the regulatory mechanisms to prevent erosion of ethical standards and ensure accountability (!) .
The legal profession is a vital component of the justice delivery system, and its members are expected to uphold the highest standards of conduct both inside and outside the courtroom. Ethical lapses and misconduct can severely undermine public confidence and the integrity of the judiciary (!) .
There is an acknowledged need for legislative and procedural reforms in the regulation of the legal profession, including the role of the Bar Councils and the Court’s supervisory powers, to ensure prompt action against misconduct and uphold the standards of the profession (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance with specific legal issues related to this document.
JUDGMENT :
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2005 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 16 of 2004, whereby the High Court found the appellant guilty of Criminal Contempt for intimidating and threatening a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah in his Court on 16.4.2003 and 13.5.2003 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of two months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, the appellant to undergo further imprisonment of 2 weeks. The High Court further directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to consider the facts contained in the complaint of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Etah, and earlier contempt referred to in the judgment and to initiate appropriate proceedings against the appellant for professional misconduct.
Reference to larger Bench and the Issue
2. On 27th January, 2006, this appeal was admitted by this Court and that part of the impugned judgment, which imposed the sentence, was stayed and the appellant was directed not to enter the Court premises at Etah (U.P.). Keeping in view the importance of the question involved while admitting the appeal on 27th January, 2006, notice was directed to be issued to the Supreme Court Bar Association as well as to the Bar Council of India. The matter was referred to the larger Bench. Learned Solicitor General of India was requested to assist the Court in the matter.
3. On 6th March, 2013 restriction on entry of the appellant into the court premises as per order dated 27th January, 2006 was withdrawn. Thereby, the appellant was permitted to enter the court premises. The said restriction was, however, restored later. On 20th August, 2015, notice was issued to the Attorney General on the larger question whether on conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act or any other offence involving moral turpitude an advocate could be permitted to practise.
4. Thus following questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether a case has been made out for interference with the order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant for criminal contempt and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for two months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and further imprisonment for two weeks in default and debarring him from appearing in courts in judgeship at Etah; and
(ii) Whether on conviction for criminal contempt, the appellant can be allowed to practise.
The facts and the finding of the High Court
5. The facts of the present appeal discloses that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah made a reference under Section 15(2) of the Act to the High Court through the learned District Judge, Etah (U.P.) on 7.6.2003 recording two separate incidents dated 16.4.2003 and 13.5.2003, which had taken place in his Court in which the appellant had appeared before him and conducted himself in a manner which constituted “Criminal Contempt” under Section 2(c) of the Act.
6. The said letter was received by the High Court along with a forwarding letter of the District Judge dated 7.6.2003 and the letters were placed before the Administrative Judge on 7.7.2003, who forwarded the matter to the Registrar General vide order dated 18.6.2004 for placing the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court and on 11.7.2004, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court referred the matter to the Court concerned dealing with contempt cases and notice was also issued to the appellant.
7. Facts denoting behaviour of the appellant, as recorded by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah, can be seen from the contents of his letter addressed to the learned District Judge, Etah. The letter reads as under:-
“Sir,
It is humbly submitted that on 16.4.2003, while I was hearing the 6-Ga-2 in Original Suit No.114/2003 titled as “Yaduveer Singh Chauhan vs. The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation”, Shri Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate app
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
