apex court held that
Advocates Act, 1961 — Sections 35, 36, 37 & 38 — Constitution of India — Articles 129 & 142 — Contempt jurisdiction of Supreme Court — Whether Supreme Court can suspend licence of advocate while punishing for contempt — Held, No — Exclusive jurisdiction vests in Bar Councils under Advocates Act.
The Constitution Bench held that though the Supreme Court, being a Court of Record under Article 129, possesses inherent power to punish for contempt of itself, such power does not extend to suspending or debarring an advocate from practice. Suspension or removal from practice is a statutory punishment specifically provided under the Advocates Act, 1961 and can be imposed only by the disciplinary authorities constituted under the Act after following the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court cannot, while exercising contempt jurisdiction under Articles 129 and 142, assume disciplinary jurisdiction vested exclusively in Bar Councils.
— Paras relating to discussion on Articles 129 & 142 and Advocates Act.
Constitution of India — Article 142 — Scope and limitations — Power to do complete justice — Cannot override substantive statutory provisions — Article 142 supplementary and curative, not destructive of statutory scheme.
The Court held that powers under Article 142 are supplementary and intended to do complete justice in causes or matters pending before the Court. Such powers cannot be exercised to supplant substantive law or to create a jurisdiction contrary to statute. The Court clarified that Article 142 cannot be used to suspend an advocate’s licence when the Advocates Act expressly vests such power in Bar Councils.
— Discussion on Prem Chand Garg, A.R. Antulay, Union Carbide and related cases.
Contempt of Court — Nature and object — Jurisdiction sui generis — Intended to protect administration of justice and majesty of law — Not adversarial litigation.
The Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction exercised to uphold the majesty of law, maintain public confidence in judicial institutions, and prevent obstruction to administration of justice. Contempt proceedings are matters between the Court and contemner and not strictly adversarial proceedings between litigating parties.
— Relevant discussion on contempt jurisdiction.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Punishments recognised — Fine, imprisonment, detention in civil prison — No new punishment can be created by Court.
The Constitution Bench held that the recognised punishments for contempt under common law and statutory law are imprisonment, fine, sequestration, or detention in civil prison. Suspension of professional licence is not a recognised punishment for contempt either under common law or under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Courts cannot create a new category of punishment while exercising contempt jurisdiction.
— Discussion on Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Advocates — Professional misconduct — Jurisdiction of Bar Council and contempt jurisdiction of Court are distinct and independent.
The Court held that though an act constituting contempt may also amount to professional misconduct, both jurisdictions operate independently. Punishment for professional misconduct can be imposed only after inquiry by the competent disciplinary committee under the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder.
— Relevant discussion on separate jurisdictions.
