TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen what is the way he can purge himself of such contempt ? That question has now come to be determined by the Supreme Court. 3. This matter concerns an advocate practising mostly in the courts situated within Ernakulam District of Kerala State. He was hauled up for contempt of court on two successive occasions. We wish to skip the facts in both the said cases which resulted in his being hauled up for such contempt as those facts have no direct bearing on the question sought to be decided now. (The detailed facts leading to the said proceedings have been narrated in the two decisions of the High Court of Kerala C.N. Presannan v. K.A. Mohammed Ali [1991] Crl. LJ 2194). Nonetheless, it is necessary to state that the High Court of Kerala found the respondent advocate guilty of criminal contempt in both cases and convicted him under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced him in one case to a fine of Rs. 10,000 (to be credited, if realised, to the funds of Kerala Legal Aid Board). In the second case, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. Though he challenged the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the High Court, he did not succeed in the Supreme Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delinquent advocate would have been under the disability contained in rule 11 quoted above. It is a self-operating rule for which only one stipulation need be satisfied, i.e., the advocate concerned should have been found guilty of contempt of court. The termini of the period of operation of the interdict is indicated by the next stipulation, i.e., the contemnor purges himself of the contempt. The inhibition will, therefore, start operating when the first stipulation is satisfied, and it would continue to function until the second stipulation is fulfilled. The latter condition would remain eluded until the delinquent advocate himself initiates steps towards that end. 9. Regarding the first condition, there is no difficulty whatsoever in the present case, because it is an admitted fact that respondent-advocate has been found guilty of contempt of court by the High Court of Kerala in two cases successively. For the operation of the interdict contained in rule 11, it is not even necessary that the advocate should have been sentenced to any punishment after finding him guilty. The difficulty arises in respect of the second condition mentioned above. 10. The Disciplinary Committee of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse would be unfair and even violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India'. In the end, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India made an unwarranted proposition on a misplaced apprehension as follows : "The independence and autonomy of the Bar Council cannot be surrendered to the provisions contained in rule 11 of the rules made by the High Court of Kerala under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act." 14. By giving expression to such a proposition, the Bar Council of India has obviously overlooked the legal position laid down by the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Association's case (supra). In paragraph 57 of the decision, the Bench said thus : "In a given case, an advocate found guilty of committing contempt of court may also be guilty of committing 'professional misconduct', depending upon the gravity or nature of his contumacious conduct, but the two jurisdictions are separate and distinct and exercisable by different forums by following separate and distinct procedures. The power to punish an advocate by suspending his licence or by removal of his name from the roll of the State Bar Counci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate. 16. When the rules stipulate that a person who committed contempt of court cannot have the unreserved right to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in the courts without any qualm or remorse, the Bar Council cannot overrule such a regulation concerning the orderly conduct of court proceedings. The Courts of law are structured in such a design as to evoke respect and reverence to the majesty of law and justice. The machinery for dispensation of justice, according to law, is operated by the court. Proceedings inside the courts are always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly manner. The very sight of an advocate, who was found guilty of contempt of court in the previous hour, standing in the court and arguing a case or cross-examining a witness on the same day, unaffected by the contemptuous behaviour he hurled at the court, would erode the dignity of the court and even corrode the majesty of it, besides impairing the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the institution of the courts. This necessitates vesting of power with the High Court to formulate rules for regulating the proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21. We have already pointed out that rule 11 is a self-operating provision. When the first postulate of it is completed (that the advocate has been found guilty of contempt of court), his authority to act or plead in any court stands snapped, though perhaps for the time being. If he does things without the express permission of the court, he would again be guilty of contempt of court besides such act being a misconduct falling within the purview of section 34 of the Advocates Act. The interdict as against him from appearing in court as a counsel, would continue until such time as he purges himself of the contempt. 22. Now, we have to consider the crucial question-How can a contemnor purge himself of the contempt ? According to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, purging oneself of contempt can be done by apologizing to the court. The said opinion of the Bar Council of India can be seen from the following portion of the impugned order: "Purging oneself of contempt can be only by regretting or apologizing in the case of a completed action of criminal contempt. If it is a case of civil contempt, by subsequent compliance with the orders or directions, the contempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ludes doing any act whatsoever which tends to scandalise or lower the authority of any court, or tends to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding or interferes with, or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. 26. We cannot, therefore, approve of the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case, where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. The danger in giving accord to the said view of the learned Single Judge in the aforecited decision is that if a contemnor is sentenced to a fine, he can immediately pay it, and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again pay the fine and persist with his contemptuous conduct. There must be something more to be done to get one-self purged of the contempt when it is a case of criminal contempt. 27. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India highlighted the absence of any mode of purging one-self of the guilt in any of the rules as a reason for not following the interdict contained in rule 11. Merely because the rules did not prescribe the mode of purging one-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hment, it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellant's expression of apology 'without any further word'. The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go away with impunity after having committed gross contempt." (p. 840) 30. Thus, a mere statement made by a contemnor before the court that he apologises, is hardly enough to amount to purging himself of the contempt. The court must be satisfied of the genuineness of the apology. If the court is so satisfied and on this basis, accepts the apology as genuine, the court has to make an order holding that the contemnor has purged himself of the contempt. Till such an order is passed by the courts, the delinquent advocate would continue to be under the spell of the interdict contained in rule 11. 31. Shri Sadrul Anam, the learned counsel for the respondent-advocate submitted first, that the respondent has, in fact, apologised before this Court through the counsel engaged by him, and second is that when this Court observed that 'this course should set everything at rest' - it should be t....