Contempt of court and advocate appearance: bar on practising in court continues until genuine apology is accepted.

An advocate found guilty of contempt of court may be barred from appearing, acting or pleading before the court until the contempt is genuinely purged. The right to practise as an advocate is distinct from the right of appearance in court, and the court's control over proceedings operates independently of Bar Council disciplinary jurisdiction. Purging of contempt is not satisfied by merely paying the penalty or offering a formal apology; it requires sincere remorse, a bona fide apology, and acceptance by the court. Until the court recognises that the contempt has been purged, the disability to appear continues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an advocate found guilty of contempt of court can be permitted to appear, act or plead in court until he purges himself of the contempt; (ii) what amounts to purging of contempt for that purpose.

Issue (i): Whether an advocate found guilty of contempt of court can be permitted to appear, act or plead in court until he purges himself of the contempt.

Analysis: Rule 11 framed under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 operates on its own once the factual predicate is satisfied, namely that the advocate has been found guilty of contempt of court. The rule concerns the orderly functioning and dignity of courts, and the right to practise as an advocate is distinct from the right to appear, act or plead before a court. The disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils over professional misconduct remains separate, but that does not take away the court's control over appearances inside court proceedings. An advocate who has been found guilty of contempt therefore stands barred from appearing in court until the bar is lifted by purging the contempt.

Conclusion: An advocate found guilty of contempt of court cannot appear, act or plead in court until he has purged himself of the contempt.

Issue (ii): What amounts to purging of contempt for that purpose.

Analysis: Purging of contempt is not completed merely by undergoing the penalty or paying the fine imposed for criminal contempt. A mere formal apology is also insufficient. The contemnor must first evince genuine remorse and then seek pardon in a manner that satisfies the court that the apology is sincere and bona fide. Only when the court accepts such apology and makes an order recognising that the contempt has been purged can the disability cease. Until then, the interdict against appearance continues.

Conclusion: Purging of contempt requires a genuine and accepted apology showing real contrition, and not merely payment of penalty or a perfunctory expression of regret.

Final Conclusion: The interdict against the respondent-advocate's appearance in court remained operative until he purged the contempt in the manner recognised by law, and the contrary order of the Bar Council of India could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may prohibit an advocate found guilty of contempt from appearing before it until the contempt is genuinely purged, and purging requires an accepted expression of sincere remorse, not merely compliance with punishment.

---