The court ruled that the contempt authority’s goal is to safeguard the authority of the law and the administration of justice, not to uphold the honor and dignity of any one judge who has been wronged or scandalized. The people’s confidence in the judiciary’s ability to deliver brave and unbiased justice is the cornerstone of the system.
In Indian legal history, the sc bar association vs uoi (1998) is regarded as a seminal case. The Supreme Court of India rendered this important decision, which has broad ramifications and tackles important problems that are central to the country’s legal system.
sc bar association vs uoi Case Facts
- The lawyer who was found guilty of criminal contempt of court had attempted to intimidate, overpower, and overrule the court with insulting, abusive, and menacing remarks in an effort to tamper with the legal system and impede its administration.
- He received a six-year sentence of ordinary imprisonment along with a three-year ban from advocating. During the four years that the sentence of confinement was suspended, it would become effective if he was found guilty of any other acts of contempt of court.
The Supreme Court Bar Association, acting as its Honorary Secretary, submitted a writ petition according to article 32 of the indian constitution, expressing dissatisfaction with the decision to prohibit the defendant from practicing as an advocate for three years. The petition sought:
- A suitable writ, directive, or declaration stating that the Bar Councils’ disciplinary committees, which were established under the advocates act 1961, are the only bodies with the power to look into, suspend, or prohibit an advocate from practicing law for professional or other misconduct stemming from a contempt of court or other punishment; and
- A declaration that no High Court or the Supreme Court of India, acting in the course of their inherent jurisdiction, has original jurisdiction, power, or authority in this matter.
sc bar association vs uoi Issues
- Whether, in the exercise of its powers under article 129 of the indian constitution read with article 142 of the indian constitution, the punishment for proven contempt of court committed by an advocate can include the punishment of barring the concerned advocate from practicing by suspending his license for a specified period of time.
sc bar association vs uoi Judgment
- However, the Supreme Court’s authority to punish for contempt of court is limited, and it cannot be expanded to include the capacity to summarily determine whether an advocate is also guilty of “professional misconduct,” eschewing the process outlined in the advocates act.
- While Article 142’s “power to do complete justice” is a corrective power that prioritizes equity over the law, it cannot be used to deny a professional lawyer due process by suspending his license to practice law in an expedited manner while handling a contempt of court case. This is in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961.
- It is impossible to interpret Article 142’s curative powers as giving the court the authority to ignore a litigant’s substantive rights when considering a case. The use of this authority to “supplant” applicable substantive law in relation to the case or matter before the court is prohibited.
- Article 142, for all its scope, cannot be used to create a new tower where none has previously been by ignoring specific statutory provisions pertaining to a subject and accomplishing something that can only be accomplished indirectly.
- Since the contemner is also an advocate, it is not permissible to exercise Article 142’s jurisdiction to punish him by suspending his license to practice while handling a contempt of court case. This power is otherwise statutorily limited to the Bar Council of India.
- The interpretation of Article 142 must take into account its salutary purpose, which is to ensure that all parties get complete justice. There is no other possibility. In a contempt of court case, neither the contemner nor the court are parties to a lawsuit.
- Similar to how a court of law investigates a criminal case, the Bar Council’s disciplinary committee looks into complaints of professional misconduct.
- Based on the evidence submitted to the committee after being given the opportunity to be heard, an advocate may face consequences. The offending advocate may face any further consequence allowed by the Act, including removal from the Advocates’ Rolls.
- Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot use its appeal jurisdiction to punish an advocate for “professional misconduct” by transforming into a statutory body with “original jurisdiction.”
- In fact, in exercising its appellate powers according to section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, read with Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may very well possess the authority to act suo motu, request the relevant records from the Bar Council, and issue the necessary directives in the event that the concerned Bar Council neglects to take any action against an advocate after being notified by the High Court or the Supreme Court of their deliberate and culpable behavior.
- Suo motu appeal authority may occasionally be considered by the Supreme Court if a matter is before the appropriate Bar Council and the Bar Council “does not act.”
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
