LexBAR COUNCIL OF INDIA versus HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
1-llGHCOURTOFKERALA
APRIL 27, 2004
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., BRIJESH KUMAR AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, I950 :
A
B
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 of Court-Rules framed by High Court of Kerala-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 of validity of the rule on the touchstone of Article 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 of Madras, {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
G
courts subordinate thereto. [659-G-H; 660-A; 658-F)
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, Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.