PRAVIN C. SHAH versus K.A. MOHD. ALI AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 09-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PRAVIN C. SHAH 
v. 
K.A. MOHD. ALI AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 9, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I !Advocates Act, I 96 I-Section 12/Section 
34-Rules framed by the High Court ~f Kerala-Rule 11-Advocate found 
guilty ~f contempt of court-Convicted by High Court-Upheld by Supreme 
Court-Sentence of fine deleted-Advocate-Contemnor admonished-However, 
the Advocate continued to appear and conduct cases in court-State Bar 
Council debarred him from pleading till he is purged ~f the contempt ~f 
court-Bar Council of India set aside the order-On appeal, held not 
justified-When an Advocate is punished .for contempt of court he cannot 
appear thereafter as counsel in the courts unless he purges himse(f ~f such 
contempt-High Courts have power to .formulate rules .for regulating the 
proceedings inside the court. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Purging'-Meaning of in the context of the Contempt of Courts Act, 
1971. 
Respondent-Advocate was held guilty of contempt of court on two 
successive occasions and was convicted by High Court under Section 12 of 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondent did not succeed in Supreme 
Court except deletion of penalty in one case. Still he continued to appear 
and conduct cases in. courts. Appellant brought the same to the notice of 
the State Bar Council which debarred him from pleading in any court till 
he got himself purged of the contempt of court. On appeal, Bar Council of 
India set aside the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. When an advocate is punished for contempt of court he 
cannot appear thereafter as a counsel in the courts, unless he purges 
himself of such contempt. (680-B; C] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1.2. When an advocate has been found guilty of contempt of court his 
authority to act or plead in any Court stands snapped, th:mgh perhaps for 
H 
675 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R." 
A 
the time being. If he does such things without the express permission of the 
court he would again be guilty of contempt of court besides such act being 
a misconduct falling within the purview of Section 34 of the Advocates Act. 
The interdict as against him from appearing in Court as a counsel would 
continue until such time as he purges himself of the contempt. [684-F-G] 
B 
2. The view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a 
• contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the 
contempt, particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of 
criminal contempt, cannot be approved. The danger in giving accord to 
the said view is that if a contemnor is sentenced to fine he can immediately 
C 
pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again 
pay the fine and persist with his contemptous conduct. Therefore, there 
must be something more to be done to get oneself purged of the contempt 
when it is a case of criminal contempt. [686-B-D] 
, 
Dr. MadAn Gopal Gupta v. The Agra University & Ors., AIR (1974) 
D 
Allahabad 39, disapproved. 
E 
3. Merely because· the Rules did .not prescribe the mode of purging 
oneself of the guilt, it does not mean that one cannot purge the guilt at all. 
When a contemnor is found guilty of a criminal contempt the first step is to 
implant or infuse in his own mind real remorse about his conduct wbicl) 
the court found to have amounted to contempt of court. Next step is to seek 
pardon from the court concerned fc;lr what he did on the ground that he 
really and genuinely repented and th~t he has resolved not to commit any 
such act in future. It is not enough that he tenders an apology. The apology 
tendered should impress the court to be genuine and sincere. If the court is 
F . so satisfied, it has to m~ke an order holding that the contemnor.has purged 
' 
-
' 
. 
himself of the C(!ntempt. Till such an order is passed by the court , the 
delinquent Advoc?te would continue to be .under the spell of the interdict 
· contained in Rule 11. [686-D-F; 687-F;G] 
Mulk Raj v. State of Punjab, [1972] 3 SCC 839, relied on. 
· M.Y. Shareef and Am: v. Hon'ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and 
Ors., AIR (1955) SC19 and M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana and Ors., [1991] 3 SCC 600, referred to. 
Words andPhrases, Permanent Edn., Vol. 35A, page 307; Black's Law 
H 
Dictionary, referred to. 
._,_ 
! . 
PRAVIN C. SHAH v. K.A. MOHD. ALI 
677 
4. Rule 11 of the Rules is not a provision intended for the Discip
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.