MAHIPAL SINGH RANA V.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(2016) 8 SCC 335
BACKGROUND
● This case came into focus in the 266th law commission as this case aroused a major issue of
misconduct by a senior advocate not only affecting the judge but also the legal profession and the
judiciary.
● The present appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the
judgment and order delivered in 2005, by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the
High Court found the appellant guilty of Criminal Contempt.
● Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, Adarsh Kumar Goel
FACTS
• Advocate Mahipal Singh Rana was enrolled as an advocate in the UP-State Bar Council.
• During a hearing of the case of Roshanlal v Nauvat Ram threatened a presiding civil judge
Shri Onkar Singh Yadav and challenged his authority as a judicial officer and the authority of
the court of law.
• He lost his temperament, threw document papers when the said judgment was passed on
order against him and hence, threatened the Hon’ble Civil Judge stating that he will make sure
that the respective judge will no longer remain as a judge in the judiciary of Etah.
• He also openly challenged the authority of the whole judiciary by disclosing the fact that
already 15-20 cases have been filed against him and thus, he is not afraid of anyone.
• High Court of Allahabad found the appellant guilty of Criminal Contempt for
intimidating and threatening a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah in his Court in 2003
and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of two months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-
under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and in default of payment of the fine,
the appellant to undergo further imprisonment of 2 weeks
• The High Court further directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to consider the facts
contained in the complaint of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Etah, to initiate
appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for professional misconduct.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
• On 27th January, 2006 - appeal was admitted by SC and that part of the impugned judgment, which imposed
the sentence, was stayed and the appellant was directed not to enter the Court premises at Etah (U.P.).
• Issue: Whether the appellant, on conviction for criminal contempt can be allowed to practice ?
• On 6th March, 2013 Interim order of restriction on entry of the appellant into the court premises as per order
dated 27th January, 2006 was withdrawn.
Laws involved
● Articles 129, 142 and 145 of the Constitution of India
● Sections 6( c), 24A, 34, 38A - Advocates Act, 1961
● Section 12 and 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
● Sanjiv Dutta & Ors. case, it was observed that the members of legal profession are required to
maintain discipline in and outside of the Court.
● In Re: Bar Council of Maharashtra versus M.V. Dabholkar case -the vital role of the lawyer in
administration of justice.
Finding of facts on conviction for criminal contempt
● “No error has been committed by the High Court while coming to the conclusion that the
appellant had committed contempt of Court under the provisions of the Act.... we have no
doubt about the fact that the appellant did appear before the Court and used the language
which was contemptuous in nature”
● "It is a well settled proposition of law that in deciding whether contempt is serious enough to
merit imprisonment, the Court will take into account the likelihood of interference with the
administration of justice and the culpability of the offender”
Held
● In the case at hand, SC held that the High Court has rightly held that the appellant was guilty of
criminal contempt.
● However, the court set aside the sentence for imprisonment in view of age of the appellant.
● Advocates Act,1961 section 6(c) commands to every Bar Council itself having a primary authority to
determine and dispose of all cases of misconduct against any advocates existing on its roll.
● In the Supreme Court Bar Association case, the Constitution Bench held that if the Bar Council fails to
take action, this Court could invoke its appellate power under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.
● 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 exercised appellate jurisdiction under the Advocates
Act section 38A in view of proved misconduct calling for disciplinary action.
● High court’s order of conviction of the appellant is justified – SC
● Further, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, as a measure of
disciplinary action, the court rightly directed that the licence of the appellant will stand suspended for
a further period of five years as a disciplinary measure.
● On noticing the inaction of the Bar council of UP and the Bar Council of India which ought to take
disciplinary action, despite the direction to take disciplinary action, Court directed reformation of
Laws regulating the legal profession.
266th LAW COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Definitions : Advocate, Misconduct, Bar Association, Law Firm, Legal Services, etc.
• Inclusion of a few nominated members in the Council apart from the elected members.
The nominated members could include retired judges, senior advocates and renowned
lawyers..
• Introduction of Special Public Grievance Redressal Committee of Bar Council of India to
look into the complaints received against advocates.
• Rejected by the BCI
THANK YOU
