1. Introductory:

Whether the Bar Council of a State is empowered to prohibit an Advocate from practising the profession of law, pending disposal of the disciplinary proceeding is the core issue that arises for consideration in this sub application filed in a suo motu contempt petition.

This application is at the instance of the contemnors in suo motu contempt petition No. 1834 of 2015 and the prayer is to stay the operation of the order passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry (hereinafter referred to as "Bar Council") prohibiting the petitioners from practising the profession of law pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them pursuant to the direction in Crl. O.P. No. 30502 of 2014 (reported in 2015-2-L.W. (Crl.) 258).

Brief facts:

2. The petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition in Crl. O.P. No. 30502 of 2014 before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of their client Mrs. Lakshmi for initiating action against the District Judge, Villupuram, Public Prosecutor, the Police and land grabbers and to protect her life and property. The learned Single Judge after perusing the materials on record decided to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioners. While dismissing the Criminal Original Petition, the learned Judge took suo motu cognizance of the contempt committed by the petitioners and placed the matter before the Honourable The Chief Justice to post the matter before a Division Bench. The learned Judge directed the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners for their professional misconduct.

3. The Bar Council initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners in D.C.C. No. 46 of 2015. The Bar Council, pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, prohibited the petitioners from practicing the profession of law. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this sub application in the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by this Court against them.

Submissions:

4. The first petitioner appeared in person and submitted that the Bar Council has no power to suspend the practice of a legal professional pending disciplinary proceedings. According to him, the impugned order has no legal sanction and as such it should be axed at the threshold.

5. We have also heard the learned counsel representing the Bar Council.

Discussion:

6. This Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 4 August 2015 in Crl. O.P. No. 30502 of 2014.

7. The Bar Council pursuant to the order in Crl. O.P. No. 30502 of 2014 (reported in 2015-2-L.W. (Crl.) 258) initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. The Bar Council passed an order dated 14 September 2015, prohibiting the petitioners from practising law in any of the Courts and Tribunals in India, till the disposal of disciplinary proceedings.

8. It is the primary contention of the petitioners that the Bar Council has no power under the Advocates Act, 1961 to pass such prohibitory orders pending disposal of disciplinary proceedings.

9. The impugned order was passed under Section 6(1)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The relevant provision:

10. Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) deals with the functions of Bar Councils. It reads as under:

Functions of the State Bar Councils:-

(1) The functions of the State Bar Councils shall be-

(a) to admit persons as advocates on its roll;

(b) to prepare and maintain such roll;

(c) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against advocates on its roll;

(d) to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates on its roll;

(dd) to promote the growth of Bar Associations for the purposes of effective implementation of the welfare schemes referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of this section and clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 7;}

(e) to promote and support law reforms;

(f) {(ee) to conduct seminars and organise talks