https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171863 A High Court may validly frame a rule barring an advocate found guilty of contempt from appearing, acting or pleading until the contempt is purged, because control over conduct in court is distinct from disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961. The rule was treated as a valid exercise of court-regulating power and not ultra vires. It was also held not to offend Article 14 or natural justice, since the contemnor had already been heard in the contempt proceedings and no separate hearing was required before the rule operated. A challenge under Article 19(1)(g) was unavailable because the petitioner was not a citizen. en-us Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171863 A High Court may validly frame a rule barring an advocate found guilty of contempt from appearing, acting or pleading until the contempt is purged, because control over conduct in court is distinct from disciplinary jurisdiction under the Advocates Act, 1961. The rule was treated as a valid exercise of court-regulating power and not ultra vires. It was also held not to offend Article 14 or natural justice, since the contemnor had already been heard in the contempt proceedings and no separate hearing was required before the rule operated. A challenge under Article 19(1)(g) was unavailable because the petitioner was not a citizen. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171863