Whether high court can debar convicted advocate from practising in court till contempt is purged?

 We may now come to the direction to be issued to the
Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh or to the Bar Council of India.
In the present case, inspite of direction of the High Court as
long back as more than ten years, no action is shown to
have been taken by the Bar Council. Notice was issued by
this Court to the Bar Council of India on 27th January, 2006
and after all the facts having been brought to the notice of
the Bar Council of India, the said Bar Council has also
failed to take any action. In view of such failure of the
statutory obligation of the Bar Council of the State of Uttar
Pradesh as well as the Bar Council of India, this Court has
to exercise appellate jurisdiction under the Advocates Act in
view of proved misconduct calling for disciplinary action. As
already observed, in SCBA case (supra), this Court
observed that where the Bar Council fails to take action
inspite of reference made to it, this Court can exercise suo
motu powers for punishing the contemnor for professional
misconduct. The appellant has already been given sufficient
opportunity in this regard.
46. We may add that what is permissible for this Court by
virtue of statutory appellate power under Section 38 of the
Advocates Act is also permissible to a High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases on
failure of the Bar Council to take action after its attention is

invited to the misconduct.

 Further, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under
Section 38 of the Advocates Act, we direct that the licence of
the appellant will stand suspended for a further period of
five years. He will also remain debarred from appearing in
any court in District Etah even after five years unless he
purges himself of contempt in the manner laid down by this
Court in Bar Council of India (supra) and R.K. Anand
(supra) and as directed by the High Court.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2006

Mahipal Singh Rana,  Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Dated:July 05, 2016.
Citation:2016 CRLJ 3734

Print Page

BCI suspends 15 lawyers for Madras HC violence

Echoing the Supreme Court’s view that legal profession has fallen to new depths, the Bar Council of India (BCI) took an “extraordinary” measure by suspending 15 advocates who allegedly indulged in the Madras High Court violence.

They were suspended without being given  an opportunity to be heard first. But the BCI justified that the law allowed it to take extraordinary measures in exceptional cases when the health of the legal profession was at stake. These advocates have also been  debarred from practising before any court or authority pending a disciplinary probe against them for “gross professional misconduct.”

The BCI directed the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against them in a month.

The 15 advocates were zeroed in on the basis of communications from the BCI, by the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council and the Registrar General of the Madras High Court. The Registrar General’s list had the names of two law college students who allegedly participated in the violence, the seven-page September-22 order authored by BCI Chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra noted.

Print Page