2001 (10) TMI 1049 - SC - Indian Laws

Rule 11 disqualifies advocates convicted for contempt from appearing until purged, binding on State Bar Council Disciplinary Committee

Pravin C. Shah Versus KA Mohammed Ali

SC held that rule 11 of Kerala HC rules under Advocates Act, 1961 regarding disqualification of advocates convicted for contempt is binding on State Bar ... Whether rule 11 of the rules framed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala under section 34(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961, is binding on the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, and if not, whether the Disciplinary Committee was justified in ordering that on account of the disqualification under rule 11, the appellant could not be allowed to appear, act or plead till he gets himself purged of the contempt by the order of the appropriate court? Held that:- The respondent-advocate continued to appear in all the courts where he was earlier appearing even after he was convicted by the High Court for criminal contempt without being objected by any court. This is obviously on account of the fact that presiding officers of the court were not informed of what happened. We, therefore, direct that in future, whenever an advocate is convicted by the High Court for contempt of court, the Registrar of that High Court shall intimate the fact to all the courts within the jurisdiction of that High Court so that presiding officers of all courts would get the information that a particular advocate is under the spell of the interdict contained in rule 11, until he purges himself of the contempt. Issues Involved:1. Whether an advocate punished for contempt of court can appear as counsel thereafter without purging himself of such contempt.2. The process by which an advocate can purge himself of contempt.3. The binding nature and implications of Rule 11 framed by the High Court of Kerala under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.4. The jurisdictional authority between the Bar Council and the High Court concerning the conduct of advocates.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether an advocate punished for contempt of court can appear as counsel thereafter without purging himself of such contempt.The Supreme Court examined whether an advocate, after being punished for contempt of court, can continue to appear in court without purging himself of the contempt. The court emphasized that Rule 11 of the rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, mandates that no advocate found guilty of contempt of court shall be permitted to appear, act, or plead in any court unless he has purged himself of the contempt. The court noted that this rule is self-operating and does not require any separate disciplinary action by the Bar Council to enforce it.Issue 2: The process by which an advocate can purge himself of contempt.The court elaborated on the process of purging oneself of contempt, particularly in cases of criminal contempt. It stated that purging is a cleansing process that involves expressing sincere remorse and seeking pardon from the court. The court must be satisfied with the genuineness of the apology for the contemnor to be considered purged of the contempt. The court rejected the notion that merely undergoing the penalty or paying a fine is sufficient for purging oneself of contempt. The apology must be genuine and accepted by the court, and only then can the contemnor be considered to have purged himself of the contempt.Issue 3: The binding nature and implications of Rule 11 framed by the High Court of Kerala under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 11 is binding and self-operating, meaning that it automatically comes into effect when an advocate is found guilty of contempt of court. The court emphasized that this rule is intended to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts, and it is not within the purview of the Bar Council to override or disregard this rule. The court also highlighted that the right to practice law includes various activities, but the right to appear and conduct cases in court is subject to the court's supervisory power.Issue 4: The jurisdictional authority between the Bar Council and the High Court concerning the conduct of advocates.The court distinguished between the disciplinary powers of the Bar Council and the supervisory powers of the High Court over court proceedings. While the Bar Council has the authority to discipline advocates for professional misconduct, the High Court has the power to regulate the conduct of advocates within the court. The court cited the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India to support this distinction, stating that the High Court can prevent an advocate found guilty of contempt from appearing in court until he purges himself of the contempt. The court emphasized that this supervisory power of the High Court does not infringe upon the Bar Council's disciplinary powers.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that an advocate found guilty of contempt of court cannot appear, act, or plead in any court unless he purges himself of the contempt by expressing genuine remorse and having his apology accepted by the court. The court directed that the Registrar of the High Court of Kerala should inform all subordinate courts about the interdict against the respondent-advocate until he purges himself of the contempt. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.