https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165458 SC held that while exercising contempt jurisdiction under Arts. 129 and 142, it cannot suspend or revoke an advocate's licence (sanad) to practice, as that power lies exclusively with the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act. The earlier view in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra was overruled to this extent. SC clarified it may, in an appropriate case, bar a contemner-advocate from appearing before it until the contempt is purged, and may withdraw an Advocate-on-Record's privilege under its own Rules, but cannot debar practice in other courts. Bar Councils are constitutionally obliged to act on established contumacious conduct. The writ petition was allowed. 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 SC held that while exercising contempt jurisdiction under Arts. 129 and 142, it cannot suspend or revoke an advocate's licence (sanad) to practice, as that power lies exclusively with the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act. The earlier view in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra was overruled to this extent. SC clarified it may, in an appropriate case, bar a contemner-advocate from appearing before it until the contempt is purged, and may withdraw an Advocate-on-Record's privilege under its own Rules, but cannot debar practice in other courts. Bar Councils are constitutionally obliged to act on established contumacious conduct. The writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165458