Advocates, contempt and strikes: the leading cases

1. In re an Advocate (1988)

An Advocate v. B.B. Haradara, 1988 INSC 307, AIR 1989 SC 245 (listed in the syllabus as In re an Advocate). The complainant’s suit for recovery of money was dismissed as withdrawn on an application moved by his advocate. He complained that the suit had been withdrawn without his authority, and the advocate was found guilty of misconduct. The Supreme Court set aside the finding and sent the matter back. It held that:

• disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal; the charge must be clearly framed and proved, and the benefit of doubt goes to the advocate;
• an advocate who acts bona fide on instructions he believes to be the client’s is not guilty of misconduct merely because the instructions turn out to be unauthorised; negligence without moral turpitude is not ordinarily misconduct, though it may give the client a civil claim;
• the disciplinary committee must consider the advocate’s defence and record reasons.

2. In re Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995)

In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, 1995 INSC 179, (1995) 2 SCC 584. A senior advocate of the Allahabad High Court, who was also Chairman of the Bar Council of India, was asked a question by a judge while arguing a case. He lost his temper, shouted at the judge, said he would have him transferred or impeached, and insulted him in open court. The judge reported the matter to the Chief Justice of India.

• The Supreme Court held him guilty of criminal contempt of the High Court (under Article 129, the Supreme Court can punish contempt of High Courts and subordinate courts as the guardian of the judicial system).
• He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six weeks, suspended for four years, to be activated if he committed contempt again in that period.
• He was also suspended from practice as an advocate for three years, so that he vacated his elective and nominated posts, including the chairmanship of the Bar Council.

3. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998 INSC 183, AIR 1998 SC 1895, (1998) 4 SCC 409, five Judges. The SCBA challenged the part of Vinay Chandra Mishra that suspended his licence. The Court held:

• The Supreme Court’s contempt power under Article 129 is inherent and is not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, though the Act’s punishments act as a guide.
• But Article 142 cannot be used to override a statute on a matter the statute deals with. Punishment of an advocate for professional misconduct, including suspension of his licence, is entrusted by the Advocates Act to the Bar Councils, with an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 38. The Supreme Court cannot, in contempt proceedings, take over that jurisdiction.
• Vinay Chandra Mishra was overruled to the extent it suspended the advocate’s licence. The conviction for contempt stood.
• The court may, however, refer the matter to the Bar Council, and may prevent a contemnor advocate from appearing before it until he purges the contempt; that is the court’s control over its own proceedings, not a disciplinary punishment.

4. Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali (2001)

Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali, 2001 INSC 493, (2001) 8 SCC 650. An advocate convicted of criminal contempt cannot appear in court until he purges the contempt, under a rule made by the High Court under section 34 of the Advocates Act. Such a rule is valid and does not trench on the Bar Council’s disciplinary power.

5. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2002)

Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, 2002 INSC 523, AIR 2003 SC 739, (2003) 2 SCC 45, five Judges. A petition by an ex-serviceman seeking a declaration that strikes by lawyers are illegal. The Court held:

• Lawyers have no right to go on strike or to call for a boycott of courts, not even a token strike. Protest may be by press statements, TV interviews, banners, black arm bands and peaceful demonstrations outside court premises.
• Only in the rarest of rare cases, where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar or the Bench are at stake, may a court overlook a protest abstention of not more than one day, and the decision is for the Chief Justice or District Judge.
• An advocate who has accepted a brief is bound to attend; he cannot refuse on the ground of a Bar resolution. He may be liable to the client for the consequences (Ramon Services v. Subhash Kapoor, 2000 INSC 519).
• Courts are not bound to adjourn because of a strike. A High Court may frame rules under section 34 to bar an advocate who strikes from appearing, and office-bearers who call strikes may themselves be proceeded against.

6. R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009)

R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 2009 INSC 959, (2009) 8 SCC 106. In the BMW hit-and-run trial in Delhi, a television channel’s sting operation showed R.K. Anand, a senior advocate for the defence, and I.U. Khan, the special public prosecutor, discussing with a key prosecution witness how he should depose. The Delhi High Court held both guilty of criminal contempt and barred them from appearing in the High Court and courts subordinate to it for four months.

• The Supreme Court upheld R.K. Anand’s conviction: an attempt to suborn a witness is a serious interference with the administration of justice.
• It set aside I.U. Khan’s conviction, while holding his conduct to be improper for a prosecutor.
• It held that a court’s power to bar an advocate guilty of contempt from appearing before it is distinct from the Bar Council’s power to suspend his licence, and is consistent with SCBA. It urged High Courts to frame rules under section 34 for the purpose.
• It also considered the role of the media in sting operations and held that the channel’s exposure of the attempt served the public interest.

How this is examined

Vinay Chandra Mishra (December 2017) and SCBA (June 2018) have been set as short notes; Harish Uppal appears through the strike problems. A good short note on any of them states the facts in three lines, the holding in three, and its relation to the others in one. The strike problem is worked out in the note on Bar-Bench relations.