Advocate Act
This Software is Licensed to: K C LAW COLLEGE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (L.B.) SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION V/S UNION OF INDIA Date of Decision: 17 April 1998 Citation: 1998 LawSuit(SC) 452
Hon'ble Judges: S C Agrawal, G N Ray, A S Anand, S P Bharucha, S Rajendra Babu Appeal Type: Writ Petition (C) Appeal No: 200 of 1995 Subject: Civil, Constitution Head Note: ADVOCATES ACT, 19 Power of the Supreme Court to determine if advocate was guilty of 'professional misconduct' Section 38 -- Constitution of India Articles 129 and 142 read with contempt of Court Act 1971, Section 12 -- Though the Supreme Court has power to punish for committing contempt of Court this power cannot be extended to include the power to determine whether the advocate is also guilty of professional misconduct without following the procedure. The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of Court, though quite wide, is not limited and cannot be expanded to include the power to determine whether an advocate is also guilty of 'professional misconduct' in a summary manner, giving a 'go by' to the procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act. The power to do complete justice under Article 142 is in a way, corrective power, which gives preference to equity over law but it cannot be used to deprive a professional lawyer of the due process contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 by suspending his licence to practice in a summary manner, while dealing with a case of contempt of Court. Though the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot in any way be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in the statute dealing expressly with the subject. Appellate powers under Section 38 are available to Supreme Court and not to the High Court Section 38 -- Nothing is more destructive of public confidence in the administration of
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (L.B.) SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION V/S UNION OF INDIA Date of Decision: 17 April 1998 Citation: 1998 LawSuit(SC) 452
Hon'ble Judges: S C Agrawal, G N Ray, A S Anand, S P Bharucha, S Rajendra Babu Appeal Type: Writ Petition (C) Appeal No: 200 of 1995 Subject: Civil, Constitution Head Note: ADVOCATES ACT, 19 Power of the Supreme Court to determine if advocate was guilty of 'professional misconduct' Section 38 -- Constitution of India Articles 129 and 142 read with contempt of Court Act 1971, Section 12 -- Though the Supreme Court has power to punish for committing contempt of Court this power cannot be extended to include the power to determine whether the advocate is also guilty of professional misconduct without following the procedure. The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of Court, though quite wide, is not limited and cannot be expanded to include the power to determine whether an advocate is also guilty of 'professional misconduct' in a summary manner, giving a 'go by' to the procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act. The power to do complete justice under Article 142 is in a way, corrective power, which gives preference to equity over law but it cannot be used to deprive a professional lawyer of the due process contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 by suspending his licence to practice in a summary manner, while dealing with a case of contempt of Court. Though the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot in any way be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in the statute dealing expressly with the subject. Appellate powers under Section 38 are available to Supreme Court and not to the High Court Section 38 -- Nothing is more destructive of public confidence in the administration of