2019 Supreme(SC) 345

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
R. Muthukrishnan – Petitioner
Versus
Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras – Respondent
Writ Petition [C] No. 612 of 2016
Decided On : 28-01-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Rules 14-A to 14-D as framed in May, 2016 by the High Court of Madras held ultra vires to Section 34 of the Advocates Act.

Headnote:(a) Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 – Rule 14-A to 14-D – There is no room for taking out the procession in the Court premises, slogan raising in the Courts, use of loudspeakers, use of intemperate language with the Judges or to create any kind of disturbance in the peaceful, respectful and dignified functioning of the Court – Instances of abject misbehavior of the advocates in the premises of the High Court of Madras resulting into requisitioning of CISF to maintain safety and majesty of the Court and rule of law is shocking – Bar Council failing to discharge its duties on the disciplinary side – Court shall have to supervise its functioning and to pass appropriate permissible orders – Independence of Bar and Bench both are supreme, there has to be balance inter se. (Para 29)

       (b) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 36 and 38 – Bar Council independent and autonomous charged with duty to take disciplinary action against Advocates – Appeal lies to High Court u/s 38 – Complete lack of self-regulation can have a negative effect on the independence of the lawyers – A lawyer has to balance between the duty to the court and interests of his clients – He has to be independent. (Para 31, 37, 41)

       [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 – Referred

       (c) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 34 and 42 – Rule making power of High Court – Disciplinary powers not conferred upon High Court or Supreme Court except to the extent dealing with an appeal under Section 38 – High Court of Madras framing Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 in exercise of the power conferred u/s 34 – Held, power to frame rules to debar lawyer for professional misconduct not conferred on the High Court – Therefore amendment made by providing Rule 14(A)(vii) to (xii) not authorized under the Act – Amendment made to the Rules 14(A) to 14(D) held ultra vires of the power of the High Court. (Para 51, 52)

       (d) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 36 and 38 – Punishment for suspending the license of an Advocate can only be imposed by Bar Council – Though section 38 provides appeal before the Court, it does not vest original jurisdiction to impose punishment – Withdrawing the privilege to practice as Advocate on record conferred by Supreme Court not tantamount to suspending or revoking the licence, because that privilege is conferred by Supreme court – Order IV Rule 10, Supreme Court Rules (Para 54, 62)

       (1995) 2 SCC 584; (1975) 2 SCC 702; (2017) 16 SCC 78 – Relied upon

       (1998) 4 SCC 409 – Referred

       (e) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 36 and 38 r/w section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Debarment on having been found guilty of contempt of court – Not punishment of suspending the license for a specified period or permanently removing him from the roll of Advocates. (Para 56, 58)

       (2001) 8 SCC 650; (2003) 2 SCC 45; (2004) 6 SCC 311; (2009) 8 SCC 106; (2016) 8 SCC 335 – Relied upon

       (f) Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 – Rule 14-A to 14-D – Rules framed in the wake of unruly behaviour of advocates – High Court could have taken action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (Para 66)

       (g) Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 – Rule 14-A to 14-D – Vires – Debarment sought not in exercise of power of contempt but by way of disciplinary control – Usurpation of the power of the Bar Council – Not permissible. (Para 67, 69, 70)

       (2016) 8 SCC 335 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, questioning the vires of amended Rules 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D of the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 made by the High Court of Madras under section 34(1) of the Advocates' Act, 1961.

       The High Court has inserted Rule 14A in the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 empowering the High Court to debar an Advocate from practicing. The High Court has been empowered to take action under Rule 14-B where any misconduct referred to under Rule 14-A is committed by an Advocate before the High Court then the High Court can debar him from appearing before the High Court and all subordinate courts. Under Rule 14-B(v) the Principal District Judge has been empowered to initiate action against the Advocate concerned and debar him from appearing before any court within such District. In case misconduct is committed before any subordinate court, the concerned court shall submit a report to the Principal District Judge and in that case, the Principal District Judge shall have the power to take appropriate action. The procedure to be followed has been provided in the newly inserted Rule 14-C and pending inquiry, there is power conferred by way of Rule 14-D to pass an interim order prohibiting the Advocate concerned from appearing before the High Court or the subordinate courts.

       Finding of the Court;

       The High Court has overstretched and exceeded its power.

       Result: Writ petition allowed.