https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165458 Contempt jurisdiction and disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates are distinct. The Supreme Court's contempt powers under Articles 129 and 142 cannot be used to suspend or debar an advocate from practice, because punishment for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act is limited to imprisonment, fine, or both. Professional misconduct, including suspension from practice or removal from the roll, is governed exclusively by the Advocates Act, 1961 through the statutory disciplinary committees. The appellate power under Section 38 cannot be used in a contempt proceeding to impose disciplinary punishment in the first instance. The earlier view allowing suspension as part of contempt punishment was overruled. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165458 Contempt jurisdiction and disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates are distinct. The Supreme Court's contempt powers under Articles 129 and 142 cannot be used to suspend or debar an advocate from practice, because punishment for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act is limited to imprisonment, fine, or both. Professional misconduct, including suspension from practice or removal from the roll, is governed exclusively by the Advocates Act, 1961 through the statutory disciplinary committees. The appellate power under Section 38 cannot be used in a contempt proceeding to impose disciplinary punishment in the first instance. The earlier view allowing suspension as part of contempt punishment was overruled. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165458