Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the power of the Supreme Court to punish an advocate for contempt versus professional misconduct:

• The power of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution to punish for contempt is wide but cannot be expanded to include the power to debar an offending advocate from practice or suspend their licence in a summary manner. (!)
• The Supreme Court cannot determine whether an advocate is guilty of "professional misconduct" in a summary manner while dealing with a case of contempt, bypassing the procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961. (!)
• The power to do complete justice under Article 142 is a corrective power that gives preference to equity over law but cannot be used to deprive a professional lawyer of the due process contained in the Advocates Act by suspending their licence. (!)
• An advocate found guilty of contempt of court may also be guilty of professional misconduct, but the two jurisdictions are separate and distinct, exercisable by different forums following separate procedures. (!)
• The power to punish an advocate by suspending their licence or removing their name from the roll for proven professional misconduct vests exclusively in the statutory authorities (State Bar Council and Bar Council of India) created under the Advocates Act, 1961. (!)
• The jurisdiction to punish an advocate for contempt of court vests exclusively in the courts. (!)
• After the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961, the exclusive power for punishing an advocate for "professional misconduct" has been conferred on the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. (!)
• The suspension or revocation of an advocate's licence involves both civil and penal consequences; therefore, the provisions must be strictly construed and can only be imposed by the competent statutory body after charges are established in the manner prescribed by the Act and Rules. (!)
• The Advocates Act, 1961, contains an elaborate and detailed procedure, akin to a regular trial, that must be followed before an advocate can be punished by the Bar Council for professional misconduct. (!)
• The Supreme Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 129, impose a punishment of suspending an advocate's licence while punishing them for contempt of court. (!)
• Such a punishment cannot be imposed even by taking recourse to the appellate powers under Section 38 of the Advocates Act while dealing with a case of contempt of court. (!)
• The law laid down in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1952) 2 SCC 584, which allowed the suspension of an advocate's licence during contempt proceedings, is overruled. (!)
• The Supreme Court has the power to withdraw the privilege to practice as an advocate on record in cases involving contemners who are advocates, but this does not amount to suspending or revoking their general licence to practice as an advocate in other courts. (!)
• While the Supreme Court cannot take over the role of the Bar Council, the Bar Council is obliged to act in aid of the Supreme Court by initiating disciplinary proceedings if apprised of an advocate's contumacious conduct. (!)