S.B. Sinha, J. - INTRODUCTION :

Constitutionality of 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 is in question is this writ petition.

BACKGROUND FACT :

The Bar Council of India is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961 ("the Act"). In terms of Section 34(1) of the Act, the High Court of Kerala framed rules; Rule 11 whereof reads as under :

"No advocate who has been found guilty of contempt of court shall be permitted to appear, act or plead in any court unless he has purged himself of the contempt."

3. Contending that the said provision is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as also Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act on the ground that it seriously impinges upon and usurps the powers of adjudication and punishment conferred on the Bar Councils under the Act as also the principles of natural justice as application thereof is automatic, this writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

4. It is not in dispute that the validity of the said rule came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali and Another [(2001) 8 SCC 650]. and therein it was upheld. The question appears to have also been deliberated upon before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Another, 2003(1) SCT 382 (SC) : [(2003) 2 SCC 45].

SUBMISSIONS :

5. Despite the said decisions Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, would urge, relying on or on the basis of the decision of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another [(1998) 4 SCC 409], that as in terms of the provisions of the Advocate Act, the Bar Council of India is entitled to punish an Advocate counsel for commission of misconduct - whether professional or otherwise - in terms of Section 35 thereof; Rule 11 framed by the High Court of Kerala cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would strenuously contend that no prohibition can be imposed on a lawyer to practice following and consequent upon a decision of a court holding him guilty of commission of contempt. No time limit for debarment of an advocate having been prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules, Mr. Reddy would submit that the same is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would argue that in applying the provisions of Rule 11, the principles of natural justice is violated as no other or further opportunity of hearing is to be given therefor and in that view of the matter too the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

6. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Kerala, on the other hand, would argue that the decision of the Constitution Bench itself in Supreme Court Bar Association (supra) is sufficient to uphold the validity of Rule 11 as therein the right of the courts to regulate the conduct of advocates within the court and to prescribe the conditions subject to which they can practise before it has been preserved which is not subservient to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council.

7. The learned counsel would submit that the dicta laid down by the Constitution Bench has been referred to with approval in Harish Uppal (supra) and in that view of the matter too the right of the High Court to frame such a rule must be held to have been upheld.

8. Mr. Iyer would further urge that an advocate can start pleading and practising in court as soon as he purges himself of contempt in relation whereto he must demonstrate that a real and genuine remorse had been infused in him about his conduct as a first step; whereafter, he may seek pardon from the court concerned.

CONTEMPT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT :

9. Law of contempt both as regard its interpretation and application had posed complex questions before t