Holding

Rule 11, prohibiting a contemnor advocate from practising until he purges the contempt, is a valid rule under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or principles of natural justice.

Summary

The Bar Council of India filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules, which bars an advocate found guilty of contempt from appearing, acting or pleading in any court until he purges the contempt. The Council argued that the rule violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, usurped the disciplinary powers of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, and breached principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that Rule 11, framed under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, is a valid legislative rule and does not infringe Articles 14 or 19, nor is it ultra‑violes the Act. The Court clarified that contempt punishment is a distinct jurisdiction of the courts, separate from professional misconduct, and that the Bar Council, not being a citizen, cannot invoke Article 19(1)(g). The rule’s requirement of purging contempt does not contravene natural‑justice norms. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules is unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Rule 11 violates the freedom of profession under Article 19(1)(g).
Whether the High Court exceeded its powers under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act in framing Rule 11.
Whether the rule infringes principles of natural justice.
Whether the Bar Council of India has locus standi to challenge the rule on the basis of Article 19(1)(g).

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. Section 30, s. Section 34, s. Section 35, s. Section 36
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 345, s. Section 346
Constitution of Indias. Article 129, s. Article 14, s. Article 145, s. Article 19(1)(a), s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 215, s. Article 32
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

Contempt of CourtAdvocates ActRule 11Bar Council of IndiaArticle 14Article 19(1)(g)Natural JusticeJudicial DisciplinePractice Rights

Judgment

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA A
v.
1-llGHCOURTOFKERALA

APRIL 27, 2004

[V.N. KHARE, CJ., BRIJESH KUMAR AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, I950 :

Articles 14 and I9(/)(a)-Rule I I of Rules framed by High Court of
Kera/a-Forbidding a lawyer from appearing, acting gr pleading in any C
court till he got himself purged of contempt of court by an order of the
appropriate court-Held, is not unconstitutional-The provision is not
violative of principles of natural justice nor is ultra vires Article I 4-
Contempt ofCourt-Rules framed by High Court ofKerala-r. I I-Advocates
Act, I96/-ss.30 and 34(/)-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss. 345 D
and 346.

Articles 19(/)(a) and 32-Bar Council of India-Challenging Rule I I
of the Rules framed by High Court of Kera/a-Held, Bar Council of India is
not a citizen-It has no such fundamental right-It cannot be permitted to
raise the question ofvalidity of the rule on the touchstone ofArticle I9(/)(a). E
Rules were framed by the High Court of Kerala in exercise of its power
under s.34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Constitutional validity of Rule 11
of the said Rules, forbidding a lawyer from appearing, acting or pleading in
any court till he got himself purged of the contempt by an order of appropriate
court was challenged by the 881" Council oflndia in the writ petition before F
the Supreme Court, on the grounds that Rule 11 was violative of Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as also of s.34(1) of the Advocates
Act, since it impinged upon and usurped the powers of adjudication and
punishment conferred on the Bar Council under the Act and that the Rule
was violative of principles or natural justice. G
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala in
exercise of its powers under s.34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is not
649 H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A unconstitutional.
Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali andAnr., [2001) 8 SCC 650 = [2001)
Supp. 3 SCR 675, relied on. (667-E)

1.2. Inherent power of the Court to punish a person for committing
B contempt of the court is universally recognised. The law of contempt is
governed by the statutes including Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Indian Penal
Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but the powers of the superior
Courts are engrafted in the Constitution by reason of Articles 129 and 215
. thereof providing that the Supreme Court and the High Courts being Courts
of records, shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to
C punish for contempt of itself. Apart from constitutional and statutory
provisions, the inherent power of the court in that behalf is recognised.
[654-C-D)

RL. Kapur v. State ofMadras, {1972) 1 SCC 651 and Kapildeo Prasad
D Sah and Ors. v. State of Biha! and Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 569, relied on.
Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. R. (1945) AC 264, referred to.

'The Law of Contempt' by Barrie and Lowe, page 22 and Oswald's
Contempt of Court, 3rd edition, pages 8-9, referred to.

E 2. Punishment for commission of contempt and punishment for
misconduct, professional or other misconduct, stand on different footings. A
person does not have a fundamental right to practise in any court. Such a
right is conferred upon him under the provisions of the Advocates Act which
necessarily would mean that the conditions laid down therein would be
applicable in relation thereto. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which
F entitles an advocate to practice, has not yet been brought into force. Section
30 uses the expression "subject to", which would include s.34 thereof. Section
34'empowers the High Court to make rules laying down the conditions subject
to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the
courts subordinate thereto. [659-G-H; 660-A; 658-F)
G Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr., (2003] 2 SCC 45,
followed.

Ashok Leyland Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (2004) l"SCAL.E
224, relied on.

H Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., [1998) 4
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA 651

sec 409 and Vino;· rhandra Mishra, Re, [1995) 2 sec 584, referred to. A
3.1. Principle of natural justice cannot be stretched too far. Its application
may be subject to the provisions of a statute or statutory rule. If a law which
is otherwise valid, provides for the consequences of such a finding, the same
by itself would not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as
only because another opportunity of hearing to a person, where a penalty is B
provided for as a logical consequence thereof, has not been provided for. Even
under the penal laws some offences carry minimum sentence. The gravity of
such offences, thus, is recognized by the Legislature. The courts do not have
any role to play in such a matter. (665-D-F]

3.2. Rule 11 of the Rules is legislative in character. As validity of the C
said rule has been upheld, it cannot be said that the same by itself, having not
provided for a further opportunity of hearing the contemnor, would attract
the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the contemnor could
also get an opportunity of hearing while purging his conduct. Rule 11,
therefore, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. (665-F-G; 667-D) D

Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New
Delhi and Ors., AIR (1978) SC 851; N.K. Prasada v. Government of India
and Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 299 Marda Chemicals Ltd etc. etc. v. Union ofIndia
and Ors. etc. etc., (2004) 4 Scale 338; Canara Bank and Ors. v. Debasis Das
and Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 557 and Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel, E
(1985) 3 sec 398, referred to.

4.1. When a person is punished by the superior court, the right of
freedom of speech conferred upon a citizen under Article 19(l)(a) of
Constitution cannot stand as a bar as the power of this Court under the Article
129 and that of the High Courts under Article 215 are independent and not F
subject to Article 19(1)(a); particularly when Clause (2) thereof excludes the
operation thereof. (657-E]

Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, [1996) S SCC
216, relied on.
G
4.2. Bar Council of India is not a citizen entitling it to raise the question
of validity of the Rules on the touchstone of Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution.
It has no such fundamental right. No person aggrieved who is a citizen of
India, is before the Court. The contention that Rule 11 of the Rules is violative
of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution, is thus, misplaced. The Bar Council cannot H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A be permitted to raise the contention. (66S.:B-C)

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 52 of 2004.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

B V.R. Reddy, Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ms. Priya Merna Puri for the Petitione!·

T.L.V. Iyer, Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh and Nikilesh R. for the Respondents.

Ms. B. Sunita Rao for the intervenor.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
S.B. SINHA, J.

INIRODUCTION:

Constitutionality of Rule 11 of the Rules Framed by the High Court of
D 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 in this writ petition.

BACKGROUND FACT:
E
The Bar Council of India is a statutory body constituted under the
Advocates Act, 1961 (''the Act"). In terms of Section 34( l) 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
F be permitted to appeal, act or plead in any court unless he has purged
himself of the contempt."

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 th.at it seriously impinges upon and usurps the powers of
G 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.

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
H Ali and Anr., {2001] 8 SCC 650 and therein it was upheld. The question
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.] 653
~·rs to have also been deliberated upon before a Constitution Bench of A
"m"iS Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union ofIndia and Anr., [2003) 2 SCC
45.

SUBMISSIONS:

Despite the said decisions Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel B
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 ofIndia and Anr.,' [1998) 4 SCC 409, that as in tenns 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 C
otherwise - in tenns o{ 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 practise 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 D
vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsels_ 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.
E
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 F
subject to which they can practise before it has been preserved which is not
subservient to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council.

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 m~tter too the right of the High Court to frame G
such a rule, must be held to have been upheld.

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
1
whereto he must demonstrate that a rea\ and genuine remorse had been
infused in him about his conduct as a fttst step; whereafter, he may seek H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C

A pardon from the court concerned.

CONTEMPT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT:

Law of contempt both as regards its interpretation and application, had
posed complex questions before the Court. 'No branch of law possibly has
B been more misconstrued or misutilized within the contempt jurisdiction';
observed Lord Denning. The contempt jurisdiction originates from the
Ecclesiastical Courts which goes back to the middle ages while ethics and law
were treated to be at par.

Inherent power of the Court to punish a person for committing contempt
C of the court is universally recognised. The law of contempt is governed by
the Statutes including Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or other statutory laws
relating thereto as, for example, Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal
Procedure but the powers of the superior courts are engrafted in the
Constitution by reason of Articles 129 and 215 thereof providing that the
D Supreme Court and the High Court being a court of records, shall have all the
powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Apart from constittitional and statutory provisions, the inherent power of the
court in that behalf is recognised. (See R.J. Kapur v. State of Madras, [1972]
1sec651).

E The country is governed by rule of law. Disobedience of the court's
order has, thus, peen held to strike at the very root of the said concept having
regard to the system upon which our government is based. (See Kapi/deo
Prasad Sah and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1999) 7 SCC 569).

An advocate is allowed considerable freedom in conducting his case.
F In the interest of the client, he even can cast reflections upon the character,
conduct or credit of parties or witnesses with impunity, provided such comments
are relevant to the issue before the court and the same is not defamatory in
character. So long as the conduct of the advocate does not amount to insult
to the court, he may not be held up for contempt.
G Summary power of punishing for contempt is used sparingly and only
in serious cases. Such a power which a court must of necessity possess but
its usefulness depends upon the wisdom and restraint with which it is
exercised. It is not used to suppress methods of advocacy. (See Parashuram
Detaram Shamdasani v. R. (1945] AC 264 at 270).
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.] 655

In Shamdasanj's case (supra) Lord Goddard, CJ., suggested other ways A
(
in which an advocate could commit contempt. He said:

"If in the course of a case a person persists in a line of conduct or
use of language in spite of a ruling of the presiding judge, he may
very properly be adjudged guilty of contempt of court, but then the
offence is the disregard of the ruling and setting the court at defiance. B
So, also, if a litigant or advocate threatened or attempted violence on
his opponent, or conceivably if he used language so outrageous and
provocative as to be likely to lead to a brawl in court, the offence
could be said to have been committed."

In 'The Law of Contempt' by Borrie and Lowe, at page 22, it is stated: C
"Any advocate is likely to be punished for contempt if he personally
insults the court and, as we have seen, insulting the court includes
not only insults made to the judge, but also insults made to a jury.
However, as has been stated already, a distinction must be made
between addressing the court and addressing opposing counsel or D
litigant, for, as Lord Goddard, CJ., said in Parashuram Detaram
Shamdasani v. R. :

"It must be rare indeed for words used in the course of argument,
however irrelevant, to amount to a contempt when they relate to an E
opponent, whether counsel or litigant."

Just as an advocate will not be justified in using abusive language
neither will he be able to use blasphemous language. Thus in R. v.
Davison a litigant conducting his own case repeatedly used
blasphemous language and for this conduct he was held guilty of F
contempt, even after allowances had been made for the fact that he
was a layman. As Bayley, J. said:

"The question is shortly this, whether, for the future, decency and
decorum shall or shall not be preserved in Courts of Justice; or
whether, under colour of defending himself against any particular G
charge, a defendant is at liberty to introduce new, mischievous, and
irrelevant matter upon the trial. I agree that a defendant, in all cases,
should have every facility allowed him in his address to the jury,
provided he confines himself within those rules which decency and
decorum require. In every case, the subject of the discussion before
the jury is to be considered, and a judge is bound to see that the H
}L

,,
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A arguments which are adduced, are such as are consistent with decency
and decorum, and not foreign to the matter on which the jury have
to decide."

In the said treatise, it has furthermore been noticed: .
'
B "Lord Goddard, CJ.'s last suggestion of barristers using threatening
or abusive behaviour, or using provocative language, have already
been discussed and need no further explanation, but as regards his
first suggestion, that complete disregard of a Judge's ruling can amount
to contempt, two cases may be cited to illustrate this type of contempt.
The first is a recent Australian case, Lloyd v. Biggin Lloyd, a barrister,
c wanted a magistrate to ruie whether or not certain evidence was
admissible but the magistrate refused, stating that the question was
not for him to d.ecide. Lloyd then said: "But your Worship must
determine ... " He was interrupted by the magistrate saying: "Carry on
with your case."
D The discourse continued thus:

Lloyd: "your Worship, with great respect, I wish your Worship to
determine whether your Worship proposes to rule ... "

Magistrate: "Carry on with your cross-examination."
E Lloyd: "I cannot carry on with any cross-examination unless your
Worship informs me whether this ..."

Magistrate: "I have and enough of your impertinence. I have put up
with it for two days. You're ... "

F Lloyd: "Would your Worship just hear me?

Magistrate: "You're fined 5 for contempt of court. If you do anything
more I will commit you."

Lloyd: "Your Worship, if you would just hear...".
G Magistrate: "You're committed. Constable, remove that man and place
him in the watchtower for three hours."

The second case, Watt v. ligertwood, shows that such defiance
of a judge's ruling need not be solely confined to the use of words.
In this case, contrary to the express orders of the court, and despite
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.] 657
a warning that such conduct would amount to contempt, an advocate A
removed a material document from the court and proceeded to destroy
it by throwing it on a fire. For this "gross and unjustifiable contempt"
the advocate was immediately imprisoned.

An advocate will be expected to conduct his case honestly, and
deliberate deception of the court can amount to contempt." B
In Oswald's Contempt of Court, 3rd edition, at pages 8-9, the law is
stated in the following terms:

"It is now the undoubted righi of a Superior Court to commit for
contempt. The usual criminal process to punish contempts was found C
to be cumbrous and slow, and therefore the Courts at an uncertain
date assumed jurisdiction themselves to punish the offence summarily,
the brevi manu, so that cases might be fairly heard, and the
administration of justice not interfered with. A Court of Justice without
power to vindicate its own dignity, to enforce obedience to its
mandates, to protect its officers, or to shield those who are entrusted D
to its care, would be an anomaly which could not be permitted to exist
in any civilized community."

When a person is punished by the superior court, the right of freedom
of speech conferred upon a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of Ii
India cannot stand as a bar as the power of this Court under the Article 129
and that of the High Court under Article 215 are independent and not subject
to Article 19( I)(a); particularly when clause (2) thereof excludes the operation
thereof. (See Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble the ChiefJustice of India, [I 996] 5
sec 216).
F
An advocate does not enjoy absolute privilege when acting in the
course of his professional duties. The dignity of the court is required to be
maintained in all situations. However, far-reaching implications the case may
have but a lawyer is not justified in making personal attack upon the complainant
or witnesses on matters not borne out by the record nor in using language
which is abusive or obscene or in making vulgar gestures in court. An G
advocate in no circumstances is expected to descend to the level of appearing
to support his view in a vulgar brawl.

Our view is only illustrative in nature to show that the courts ordinarily
exercise its power of contempt with due care and caution and not mechanically
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A and whimsically. The power of contempt is not exercised only because it is
lawful to do so but when it becomes imperative to uphold the rule of law.

ADVOCATES ACT:

The said Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to
B legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Council and All
India Bar. An 'advocate' has been defined to mean a person entered in any
roll under the provisions of said Act. The expression 'prescribed' has been
defined in Section 20) to mean prescribed by the rules made therein. Section
19 of the Act empowers the Bar Councils to make rolls to carry out the
C purposes of Chapter II. Section 30 of the Act reads as under:

" 30. Right of advocates to practise. - Subject to provisions of this
Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll, shall be
entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this
Act extends, ---
D (i) in all courts including the Supreme Court;

(ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take
evidence; and

(iii) before any other authority or person before whom such
advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force
entitled to practise."

This provision has not yet been brought into force.

Section 34 of the Act empowers the High Court to make rules laying
F down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to
practise in the High Courts and the courts subordinate. thereto. Section 35
provides for conduct of advocates; sub-section ( l) whereof is as under:

"35. Punishment.of advocates for misconduct.--(!) where on receipt
of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe
G that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other
misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary
committee.

Section 36 provides for the disciplinary powers of Bar Council of India.

H An appeal lies to the Bar Council of India against a decision made under
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.] 659

Section 35 whereas an appeal lies to this Court against an order made by the A
Bar Council of India.

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for when an
offence as is described under Sections 175, 178, 179 and 180 or 228 of the B
Indian Penal Code, is committed in the view or in the presence of any civil,
criminal or revenue court before rising of the court may detain the offender
in custody and take cognizance of the offence and after giving the offender
a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished
to a fine of Rs. 200 or imprisonment in default for one month. C
Section 346 provides for the procedure where the Court is of the opinion
that the offender should be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment
of fine or that a fine exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed on
him or such court is for any reason of opinion that the case should not be
disposed of under Section 345. Such court after recording the facts constituting D
the offence and the statement of the accused may forward the case to a
Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same, and may require security to
be given for the appearance of such person before such Magistrate or if
sufficient security is not given, shall forward such person in custody to such
Magistrate.
E
Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with five classes
of contempt, namely, (i) Intentional omission to produce a document by a
person legally bound to do so; (ii) refusal to take oath when duly required
to take one; (iii) refusal to answer questions by one legally bound to state
the truth; (iv) refusal to sign a statement made to a public servant when F
legally required to do so; and (v) intentional insult or interruption to a public
servant at any stage of a judicial proceeding.

An advocate practising in the Court can also be punished under the
aforementioned provisions.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONIEMPT OF COURT AND MISCONDUCT G
BY AN ADVOCATE:

Punishment for commission of contempt and punishment for misconduct,
professional or other misconduct, stand on different footings. A person does
not have a fundamental right to practise in any court. Such a right is conferred H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A upon him under the provisions of the Advocates Act which necessarily
wou1d mean that the conditions laid down therein would be applicable in
relation thereto. Section 30 of the Act uses the expressions "subject to"
which would include Section 34 of the Act.

In Ashok Leyland Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (2004) 1 SCALE
B 224 this Court noticed:

"Subject to" is an expression whereby limitation is expressed. The
order is conclusive for all purposes.

This Court further noticed the dictionary meaning of "subject to" stating:
c "Furthermore, the expression 'subject to.' must be given effect to.

In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition at page 1278, the expression
"Subject to" has been defined as under:

"Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to;
D governed or affected by; provided that; provided, answerable
for. Homan v. Employers Rei11surance Corp.. , 345 Mo. 650,
136 s.w. 2d 289, 302"

CASE LAWS:
E A Constitution Bench ofthis Court in Supreme Court Bar Association
(supra) no doubt overruled its earlier decision in. Vinay Chandra Mishra, Re
[1995] 2 SCC 584 so as to hold that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is only empowered to proceed
suo motu against an advocate for. his misconduct and send for the records
F and pass an appropriate order against the advocate concerned.

But it is one thing to say that the Court can take suo motu cognizance
of professional or other misconduct and direct the Bar Council of India to
proceed against the advocate but it is another thing to say that it may not
allow an advocate to practise in his court unless he purges himself of contempt.
G
Although in a case of professional misconduct, this Court cannot punish
an advocate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution
of India which can be imposed on a finding of professional misconduct
recorded in the manner prescribed under the Advocates Act and the rules
framed thereunder but as has been noticed in the Supreme Court Bar
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.]661

Association (supra); professional misconduct of the advocate concerned is A
not a matter directly in issue in the matter of contempt case.

In Supreme Court Bar Association (supra), however, this Court held:

"57. In a given case, an advocate found guilty of committing contempt
of court may also be guilty of committing "professional misconduct", B
depending upon the gravity or nature of his contumacious conduct,
but the two jurisdictions are separate and distinct and exercisable by
different forums by following separate and distinct procedures. The
power to punish an advocate by suspending his licence or by removal
of his name from the roll of the State Bar Council for proven
professional misconduct vests exclusively in the statutory authorities. C
created under the Advocates Act, 1961, while the jurisdiction to
punish him for committing contempt of court vests exclusively in the
courts."

The constitution Bench, however, in no uncertain terms observed:
D
"80. In a given case it may be possible, for this Court or the High
Court, to prevent the contemner advocate to appear before it till he
purges himself of the contempt but that is much different from
suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practise as an
advocate. In a case of contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or E
blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-Record, this Court possesses
jurisdiction, under the Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his
privilege to practise as an Advocate-on-Record because that pri,ilege
is conferred by this Court and the power to grant the privilege includes
the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that privilege,
however, does not amount to suspending or revoking his licence to F
practice as an advocate in other courts or tribunals."

The Constitution Bench of this Court in Harish Uppal (supra) noticed
the aforementioned observations, stating:

"25 ...Thus a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the Bar G
Councils are expected to rise to the occasion as they are responsible
to uphold the dignity of Courts and majesty of law and to prevent
interference in administration of justice. In our view it is the duty of
Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or
unbecoming conduct."
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Holding that the right of appearance in courts is still within the control
and jurisdiction of courts, this Court noticed:

"34... Section 30 of the Advocates Act has not been brought into
force and rightly so. Control of conduct in Court can only be within
the domain of Courts. Thus, Article 145 of the Constitution of India
B gives to the Supreme Court and Section 34 of the Advocates Act
gives to the High Court power to frame rules including rules regarding
condition on which a person (including an Advocate) can practise in
-the Supreme Court and/or in the High court and Courts subordinate
thereto. Many Courts have framed rules in this behalf. Such a rule

c would be valid and binding on all. Let the Bar take note that unless
self-restraint is exercised, Courts may now have to consider framing
specific rules debarring Advocates, guilty of contempt and/or
unprofessional or unbecoming conduct, from appearing before the
court. Such a rule, if framed, would not have anything to do with the
disciplinary j-urisdiction of Bar Councils. It would be concerning the
D Courts. The right of the advocate to practise envelopes a lot of acts
to be performed by him in discharg~ of his professional duties. Apart
from appearing in the Courts he can be consulted by his clients, he
can give his legal opinion whenever sought for, he can draft
instruments, pleadings, affidavits or any other documents, he can
participate in any conference involving legal discussions, he can work
E in any office or firm as a legal officer, he can appear for clients before
an arbitrator or arbitrators etc. Such a rule would have nothing to do
with all the acts done by an advocate during his practice. He may
even file Vakalat on behalf of client even though his appearance
inside the Court is not permitted. Conduct in Court is a matter
F concerning the Court and hence the Bar Council cannot claim that
what should happen inside the Court could also be regulated by them
in exercise of their disciplinary powers. The right to practise, no
doubt, is the genus of which the right to appear and conduct cases
in the Court may be a specie. But the right to appear and conduct
cases in the Court is a matter on which the Court must and does have
G major supervisory and controlling power. Hence Courts cannot be and
are not divested of control of supervision of conduc~ in Court merely
because it may involve the right of an advocate. A rule can stipulate
that a person who has committed contempt of Court or has behaved
unprofessionally and in an unbecoming manner, will not have the right
H to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in Courts. The Bar
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.] 663

Councils cannot overrule such a regulation concerning the orderly A
conduct of Court proceedings. On the contrary it will be their duty to
see that such a rule is strictly abided by. Courts of law are structured
in such a design as.to evoke respect and reverence to the majesty of
law and justice. The machinery for dispensation of justice according
to law is operated by the Court. Proceedings inside the Courts are
always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly manner. The very B
sight of an advocate, who is guilty of Contempt of Court or of
unbecoming or unprofessional conduct, standing in the Court would
erode the dignity of the Court and even corrode the majesty besides
impairing the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the institution
of the Courts. The power to frame such rules should not be confused C.
with the right to practise law. While the Bar Council can exercise
control over the latter, the Courts are in control of the former. This
distinction is clearly brought out by the difference in language in
Section 49 of the Advocates Act on the one hand and Article 145 of
the Constitution of India and Section 34( I) of the Advocates Act on D
the other. Section 49 merely empowers the Bar council to frame rules
laying down conditions subject to which an Advocate shall have a
right to practise i.e. do all the other acts set out above. However,
Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court
to make rules for regulating this practice and procedure of the Court
including inter alia rules as to persons practising before this Court. E
Similarly, Section 34 of the Advocates Act empowers High Courts to
frame rules, inter a/ia to lay down conditions on which an Advocate
shall be permitted to practise in Courts. Article 145 of the Constitution
of India and Section 34 of the Advocates Act clearly show that there
is no absolute right to an Advocate to appear in a Court. An Advocate
appears in a Court subject to such conditions as are laid down by the F
Court. It must be remembered that Section 30 has not been brought
into force and this also shows that there is no absolute right to appear
in a Court. Even if Section 30 were to be brought into force control
of proceedings in Court will always remain with the Court. Thus, even
then the right to appear in Court will be subject to complying with G
conditions laid down by Courts just as practice outside courts would
be subject to conditions laid down by Bar council of India, There is
thus no conflict or clash between other provisions of the Advocates
Act on the one hand and Section 34 or Article 145 of the Constitution
of India on the other."
H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A This Court is bound by the aforementioned decisions.

The question came up directly for consideration in Pravin C. Shah
(supra). Thomas, J. speaking for the Bench inter a/ia observed that Rule 11
does not bind the disciplinary committee or any other organ of the Bar
Council. It is in no way involved. It, however, may have a duty to inform a
B delinquent advocate of the Bar under Rule I I.

'Rule I I concerns dignity and the orderly functioning of the courts', the
court held and further observed:

"I6 ... Conduct in court is a matter concerning the court and hence the
c Bar Council cannot claim that what should happen inside the court
could also be regulated by the Bar Council in exercise of its disciplinary
powers. The right to practise, no doubt, is the genus of which the
right to appear and conduct cases in the court may be a specie. But
the right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on
which the court must have the major supervisory power.
D
Hence the court cannot be divested of the control or supervision of
the court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate."
Pointing out the difference between maintenance of dignity of court and
corroding the majesty of it as also impairing the confidence of the public in
E the efficacy of the court vis-a-vis the professional misconduct of the lawyers,
the Court held that Rule I I is a self-operating provision. Addressing the
question as to how a contemnor can purge himself of contempt, this r::ourt
held that obeying the orders of the court or undergoing the penalty .imposed
by it may not be necessarily sufficient to complete purging of the contemnor
F of the contempt, particularly, when the contemnor is convicted of criminal
contempt, it was observed that there must be something more· to be done to
get oneself purged of the criminal contempt. As regard tendering of apology,
it was opined:

"31. Thus a mere statement made by a contemnor before court that
he apologises, is hardly enough to amount to purging himself of the
G contempt. The court must be satisfied of the genuineness of the
apology. If the court is so satisfied and on its basis accepts the
apology as genuine, the court has to make an order holding that the
contemnor has purged himself of the contempt. Till such an order is
passed by the court, the delinquent advocate would continue to be
H under the spell of the interdict contained in Rule I I of the Rules."

r
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.] 665

The said decision governs the field. We do not see any reason to depart A
form the views taken therein.

ARTICLE 19(1)(g):

Bar Council of India is not a citizen entitling it to raise the question of
validity of the Rules on the touchstone of Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution. B
It has no such fundamental right. No person aggrieved who is a citizen of
India is before us. The contention of Mr. Reddy that Rule 11 of the Rules is
violative of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India is, thus, misplaced. We
cannot permit the Bar Council to raise the said contention.

NATURAL JUSTICE:
c
Principle of natural justice is required to be observed by a court or
Tribunal before a decision is rendered involving civil consequences. It may
only in certain situation be read into Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
when an order is made in violation of the rules of natural justice. Principle of D
natural justice, however, cannot be stretched too far. Its application may be
subject to the provisions of a statute or statutory rule.

Before a contemnor is punished for contempt, the court is bound to
give an opportunity of hearing to him. Even such an opportunity of hearing
is necessary in a proceeding under Section 345 of the code of Criminal E
. Procedure. But if a law which is otherwise valid, provides for the consequerices
of such a finding, the same by itself would not be violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India inasmuch as only because another opportunity of
hearing to a person, where a penalty is provided for as a logical consequence
thereof, has been provided for. Even under the penal laws some offenc;es
carry minimum sentence. The gravity of such offences, thus, is recognized by F
the Legislature. The courts do not have any role to play in such a matter.

Rule 11 framed by the Kerala High Court is legislative in character. As
validity of the said rule has been upheld, it cannot be said that the same by
itself, having not provided for a further opportunity of hearing the contemnor, G
would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi and Ors., AIR (l 978) SC 851, this Court observed:

"43. Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication,
to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many
forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when
people are affected by acts of Authority. It is the hone of healthy
government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament
of Judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam - and
B of Kautilya's Arthasastra - the rule of law has had this stamp of
natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into
these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural
justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its
application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other
c extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our
jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-
American system."

In N.K. Prasada_v. Government ofIndia and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3137
of [1999] disposed of on 12th April, 2004, this Court observed:
D
"The principles of natural justice, it is well-settled, cannot be put into
a strait-jacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. It is also well-settled that if a party after
having proper notice chose not to appear, he at later stage cannot be
permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of
E hearing. The question had been considered by a Bench ofthis Court
in Sohan Lal Gupta (Deed) through LRs. and Ors. v. Asha Devi
Gupta (Smt.) and Ors., [2003] 7 SCC 492 of which two of m (V.N.
Khare, CJI., and Sinha, J.) are parties wherein upon noticing a large
number of decisions it was held:
F "29. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in
a strait-jacket formula. In a given case the party should not only
be required to show that he did not have a proper notice resulting
in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that
he was seriously prejudiced thereby ..."
G The principles of natural justice, it is well-settled, must not be
stretched too far."

(See also Marda Chemicals Ltd. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.,
etc. etc., [2004] 4 Scale 338 and Canara Bank and Ors. v. Debasis Das and
Ors., [2003] 4 SCC 557.)
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [SINHA, J.] 667

In Union ofIndia and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel, [ 1985] 3 SCC 398 whereupon A
reliance has been placed by Mr. Reddy, this Court held:

"97. Though the two rules of natural justice, namely, nemo judex in
causa sua and audi alteram partem, have now a definite meaning and
connotation in law and their content and implications are well
understood and firmly established, they are nonetheless not statutory B
rules. Each of these rules yields to and changes with the exigencies
of different situations. They do not apply in the same manner to
situations which are not alike. These rules areilot cast in a rigid mould
nor can they be put in a legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but
flexible. These rules can be adapted and modifiJd by statutes and C
statutory rules and also by the constitution of the Tribunal which has
to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such Tribunal is
governed ... "
'
The ratio of the said decisions, therefore, does not support the
proposition canvassed by Mr. Reddy. D.
Furthermore, the contemnor could also get an opportunity of hearing
while purging his conduct. Rule 11 of the Rules, therefore, is not also ultra
vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION: E
We, therefore, are of the opinion that Rule 11 of the Rules famed by
Kerala High Court is not unconstitutional. There is no merit in this writ
petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

RP. F
Petition dismissed.