Power Of Courts To Debar An Advocate From Practising For Contempt Of Court [Explainer]

In the context of the contempt verdict passed by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan, several readers had asked doubts about the power of the courts to debar an advocate from practising.In that case, the Supreme Court imposed a substantive sentence of fine of Rupee One and held that on default to pay the fine, Bhushan will have to undergo imprisonment for three months and will. This decision came in a writ petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that Bar Councils under the Advocates Act alone have the jurisdiction to remove an advocate from the rolls and that either the Supreme Court or the High Court cannot make any such direction to suspend the practise of an advocate as a punishment for contempt of court. Court can debar advocate's appearance only in exercise of contempt power and not otherwise In R Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General of High Court of Judicature at Madras and others, the Supreme Court held that the High Court can debar an advocate from appearing in courts only in the exercise of its contempt powers, and cannot do so for any other acts of professional misconduct. Holding thus, the Supreme Court quashed Rules 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D inserted in the Rules of High Court of Madras in 2016 empowering the High Court and the District Courts from debarring an advocate from practice on committing actions such as : accepting money in the name of a Judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or tampering with the Court record or Court order; or browbeating or abusing a Judge or Judicial Officer; or spreading unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations/petitions against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the Superior Court; or participating in a procession inside the Court campus and/or involves in gherao inside the Court Hall or holds placard inside the Court Hall; or appearing in the Court under the influence of liquor; The Supreme Court held that Section 34 of the Advocates Act, which gives rule-making power to the High Court Act, intends to regulate the practice of the advocate in the High Court and subordinate courts. However, the High Court may punish advocate for contempt and then debar him from practicing for such specified period as may be permissible in accordance with law, but without exercising contempt jurisdiction by way of disciplinary control no punishment can be imposed" "The debarment cannot be ordered by the High Court until and unless advocate is prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act.