UNIT 3

1. Contempt and types and case

Introduction
The judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law. For the effective functioning of courts and the
fair administration of justice, it is crucial that their authority be respected and upheld. The concept of Contempt of
Court serves this very purpose — it protects the dignity and authority of judicial institutions against acts that
undermine or obstruct their functioning. In India, the law relating to contempt is codified under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. It draws a distinction between two major categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt. This
essay aims to explain the meaning and types of contempt along with significant case laws.
Meaning of Contempt of Court
Contempt of Court refers to any act or omission that shows disrespect to the authority of a court or interferes with
the due administration of justice. The purpose is to safeguard the majesty of judicial institutions and ensure that
their functioning remains uninfluenced and unimpaired.
According to Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
Civil Contempt is defined as “willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other
process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.”
Criminal Contempt means “the publication of any matter or the doing of any act whatsoever which—
scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner.”
Types of Contempt
1. Civil Contempt
It arises from noncompliance with court orders or undertakings.
The core issue here is disobedience, whether through deliberate inaction or willful disregard of legal
obligations.
Example: In Subrata Kunda v. Kshiti Goswami (2010), the Calcutta High Court held a party guilty of contempt
for not complying with an undertaking given to the court, emphasizing the necessity of respecting court promises.
2. Criminal Contempt
This is broader and includes acts that threaten the dignity and authority of the court or interfere with judicial
proceedings.
Example: In Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1954), the Supreme Court held that even
without actual interference, a publication which tends to lower the court’s authority or interfere with justice can be
punished as contempt.
Important Case Laws
1. Justice C.S. Karnan Case (2017)
Justice Karnan, a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court, made scandalous allegations against other judges and
defied Supreme Court orders. He became the first sitting High Court judge to be sentenced to six months in jail for
contempt. This case reaffirmed that no one, not even a judge, is above the law or immune from the consequences
of contemptuous conduct.
 2. M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015)
A political leader used abusive and derogatory remarks against the judiciary in a public rally. The Supreme
Court upheld his conviction for criminal contempt, asserting that such language lowers public confidence in the
judicial system.
Conclusion
Contempt of Court is a powerful tool vested in the judiciary to preserve its authority, protect its dignity, and ensure
the fair administration of justice. While civil contempt deals with disobedience of court orders, criminal contempt
addresses any act that tarnishes the image of the judiciary or obstructs its proceedings. However, the courts have
also made it clear that healthy criticism of judgments, when made in good faith and within reasonable limits, is not
punishable.

2. Functions of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils (SBCs) in Disciplinary
Proceedings (OR) punish and rem for pro misconduct
Introduction
The legal profession is selfregulated in India through statutory bodies – the Bar Council of India (BCI) at the national
level and State Bar Councils (SBCs) at the state level. A critical function of these councils is to maintain professional
standards and discipline among advocates. This is chiefly governed under Chapter V (Sections 35 to 44) of the
Advocates Act, 1961.
1. Role of State Bar Councils (SBCs)
1.1. Power to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings (Section 35)
If an advocate is found guilty of professional or other misconduct, the State Bar Council initiates proceedings.
On receiving a complaint or suomotu, the SBC refers the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.
1.2. Constitution of Disciplinary Committees (Section 9)
Every SBC constitutes one or more disciplinary committees consisting of three members.
1.3. Powers of the Disciplinary Committee
Can dismiss the complaint if found baseless.
If misconduct is proved, can:
Reprimand the advocate
Suspend the advocate from practice for a fixed time
Remove the advocate's name from the state roll (debar permanently)
1.4. Procedure
Must give the advocate a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Proceedings must follow principles of natural justice.
Orders must be communicated to the BCI and affected parties.
2. Role of Bar Council of India (BCI)
2.1. Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 37)
BCI hears appeals against orders of SBC disciplinary committees.
May pass any of the following:
Confirm, reverse, or modify the order
Send back the case for reconsideration
2.2. Original Disciplinary Powers (Section 36)
If the complaint is against an advocate on the roll of more than one state, or in certain circumstances, the BCI itself
may conduct original disciplinary proceedings.
May withdraw proceedings from a SBC and conduct it through its own Disciplinary Committee.
2.3. Review and Supervision
Has general supervisory jurisdiction over the disciplinary functions of SBCs.
Can call for records, issue directions, or intervene where necessary to ensure justice.
2.4. Final Appeal to Supreme Court (Section 38)
Orders passed by BCI can be challenged before the Supreme Court by the aggrieved advocate or complainant.
3. Common Provisions and Safeguards
3.1. Application of Evidence Act and Civil Procedure (Section 42)
Disciplinary committees function like a civil court with powers:
3.2. Stay of Orders (Section 43) Execution of disciplinary orders can be stayed on appeal.
3.3. Cost Orders Can impose costs on parties if complaints are found frivolous or malicious.

1. Meaning of Professional and Other Misconduct

Professional Misconduct refers to improper or unethical conduct by an advocate in the course of his professional
duties—e.g., misappropriation of client funds, breach of client confidentiality, or misleading the court.
Other Misconduct includes any conduct by an advocate outside their professional capacity that is unethical or lowers
the dignity of the profession—e.g., criminal behavior, violence, or moral turpitude.
2. Remedies Against Misconduct
(A) Statutory Remedies
1. Appeal to Bar Council of India (Section 37):
If a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the State Bar Council, they can appeal to the BCI.
2. Appeal to Supreme Court (Section 38):
Final remedy lies with the Supreme Court against BCI's decision.
3.Review and Revision Powers (Section 44):
Disciplinary Committees may review their own orders within 60 days.
(B) Civil Remedies
A client suffering loss due to an advocate’s misconduct may file a suit for damages or compensation in a civil court.
(C) Criminal Remedies
If the misconduct amounts to an offence (e.g., cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust), the advocate may be
prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code.
(D) Writ Jurisdiction
A party may approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32 for violation of
fundamental rights or failure of a statutory duty by the Bar Council.
3. Ethical Guidelines by the Bar Council of India
The BCI has prescribed rules under Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules, which cover: Violation of these rules may
lead to disciplinary proceedings. For example, Rule 1 mandates that an advocate must not suppress material facts in
court. Breach of this rule can amount to misconduct.

4. Contempt of Court: Civil and Criminal – A Comparative Essay with Punishments

Introduction
The judiciary plays a central role in upholding the rule of law and dispensing justice impartially. To ensure its dignity,
independence, and efficacy, courts are empowered to punish acts of contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
defines and categorizes contempt into two types – civil contempt and criminal contempt. Both are intended to
protect the authority of courts, but they differ in nature, intent, and legal consequences.
Definition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Difference between Civil and Criminal Contempt
Aspect Civil Contempt Criminal Contempt

Nature Disobedience of court orders Acts that insult, obstruct, or interfere with justice

Objective To ensure compliance with court orders To protect the dignity and authority of the judiciary

Examples Not following court’s injunctions Breaching Publishing material prejudicing a trial
undertakings Scandalizing judges

Intent Generally personal gain or disregard Usually aimed at undermining public faith in courts

Who can initiate Usually the aggrieved party or court itself Usually the court on its own motion (suo motu)

Proof Willful disobedience must be shown Actual or potential interference with justice must
Requirement be shown

Outcome Focus Compliance and enforcement Penal consequences and protection of court’s image

Punishments under the Act Section 12: Punishment for Contempt

 The punishment for both civil and criminal contempt is:
Simple imprisonment for a term up to 6 months, or Fine up to ₹2,000,.
However, courts may discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment if an apology is made to the satisfaction of
the court.
Special Provision:
 In case of civil contempt, if the contemnor complies with the order, the court may choose not to punish.
 In criminal contempt, even a mere apology may not be sufficient if the act has significantly harmed public
perception of the judiciary.
CONTEMPT JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS
Introduction
The judiciary is a cornerstone of democratic governance, entrusted with upholding the Constitution and rule of law. To
maintain its authority and the dignity of courts, the Indian legal system empowers the judiciary with contempt
jurisdiction. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts are vested with this power under the Constitution and the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This jurisdiction serves to punish conduct that obstructs or undermines the
administration of justice.
Meaning of Contempt of Court
Under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt is classified as:
Civil Contempt [Section 2(b)]: Willful disobedience of any court order, decree, direction, or undertaking.
Criminal Contempt [Section 2(c)]: Any act that scandalizes the court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the
administration of justice.
1. Contempt Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court as a “court of record” and gives it the power to punish for its own contempt.
The Supreme Court can take suo motu cognizance of contempt.
It can punish for contempt of itself or any subordinate court.
No law can curtail this jurisdiction, but it may be regulated by law such as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002), the Supreme Court held the author guilty of criminal contempt for scandalizing the
court.
Limitations:
Though the Supreme Court’s power is not explicitly limited by statute, it generally follows the procedure laid down in
the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Contempt Jurisdiction of High Courts
Article 215: Declares every High Court to be a court of record and grants it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Additionally, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, High Courts have jurisdiction to punish contempt of
subordinate courts under Section 10.
Scope and Features:
High Courts can exercise contempt jurisdiction over:
Themselves (selfcontempt)
Subordinate courts in the state (e.g., district courts)
For example, if a party disobeys an injunction order of a civil court, the High Court can initiate contempt
proceedings.
In E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (1970), the Supreme Court upheld a Kerala High Court
order punishing a politician for scandalizing the judiciary.
Procedural Safeguards:
High Courts must follow principles of natural justice. Under Section 17 of the Act, a notice and opportunity to be
heard must be given to the alleged contemnor.
4. Punishment for Contempt
5. Judicial Caution and Free Speech: Indian courts have reiterated that contempt powers must be used sparingly and
cautiously, to balance the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) with the independence of the judiciary.
REMEDIES AGAINST ORDERS OF PUNISHMENT BY THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
Introduction
The legal profession is governed by a strict code of ethics and discipline. The State Bar Councils and the Bar
Council of India (BCI) are empowered under the Advocates Act, 1961 to inquire into professional or other
misconduct by advocates through their Disciplinary Committees. When a Disciplinary Committee passes an order of
punishment, the Act also provides remedies to challenge or appeal against such orders. These remedies are essential
to ensure fairness, accountability, and natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
1. Appeal to the Bar Council of India (Section 37)
 If a State Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee passes an order under Section 35 (e.g., reprimand,
suspension, or removal), an appeal can be filed before the BCI.
 Time limit: The appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of the order.
 The BCI has the power to:
o Confirm the order,

o Modify the punishment, or

o Set aside the order and pass a fresh decision.

2. Appeal to the Supreme Court (Section 38)

 If the order is passed by the Bar Council of India, either as an original disciplinary authority (under
Section 36) or in appeal from a State Bar Council (under Section 37), a further appeal lies to the Supreme
Court.
 Time limit: The appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of the BCI’s order.
 The Supreme Court has wide powers to examine the facts, law, and procedure and can:
o Affirm, reverse, or modify the order, or

o Remand the matter for reconsideration.

3. Review (Section 44)

 The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council or the BCI has the power to review its own order,
either on its own motion or on an application made within 60 days.
 This provides a chance to correct errors or reconsider the decision without going to appellate bodies.
4. Writ Jurisdiction under Constitution
 An advocate aggrieved by the decision of a Disciplinary Committee may also file:
o A Writ Petition under Article 226 in the High Court (for violation of fundamental rights or
procedural irregularities),
o Or a Writ Petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court, especially if the matter involves breach
of fundamental rights or public interest.
Note: Courts usually discourage writs when adequate statutory remedies under the Advocates Act are available.
5. Procedural Safeguards and Natural Justice
Right to be heard and represented (Section 35),
Right to receive notice of the charge and evidence (Section 36),
Right to appeal or review, __ Protection against double jeopardy for the same offence (Section 40).
These ensure that any punishment order is fair and subject to correction.
AUTH EMPOWERED TO PUNISH FOR PROF MISCONDUCT
1.SBC
2. BCI
3. Supreme Court of India
Constitutional Power: Under Article 129 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is a Court of Record with the power
to punish for its own contempt.
Misconduct Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court can take action against advocates who commit professional or other misconduct in proceedings
before it.
In such cases, the Supreme Court can direct removal from the roll or prohibit appearance before it, even if the Bar
Council does not act.
Case Example: ExCapt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) – The Court held that the right to practice is subject
to disciplinary control by the Court.
2. High Courts (under Article 215 of the Constitution)
Constitutional Power: Under Article 215, every High Court is also a Court of Record and has the power to punish for
its own contempt.
Misconduct Jurisdiction:
High Courts can take cognizance of misconduct by advocates practicing before them.
They may initiate contempt proceedings or recommend disciplinary action to the concerned State Bar Council.
Case Example: R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) – Delhi High Court punished advocates for
influencing a witness, holding it as professional misconduct.
3. Subordinate Courts
Limited Power: Subordinate courts do not have direct disciplinary powers under the Advocates Act.
Reporting Role: If an advocate misbehaves or commits professional misconduct in their court, the judge can report
the matter to the State Bar Council. The State Bar Council can then initiate an inquiry under Section 35 of the
Advocates Act.
 6 MARKS
OBJECTIVES OF CC,1971
Meaning of Contempt of Court
Contempt of Court refers to any act or omission that shows disrespect to the authority of a court or interferes with the
due administration of justice. The purpose is to safeguard the majesty of judicial institutions and ensure that their
functioning remains uninfluenced and unimpaired.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines and categorizes contempt into two types – civil contempt and criminal
contempt. Both are intended to protect the authority of courts, but they differ in nature, intent, and legal
consequences.
1. Definition and Limitation of Powers: The Act defines "civil" and "criminal" contempt clearly. It limits the
discretionary powers of courts to prevent misuse.
2. Upholding Authority of Judiciary: It safeguards the dignity and authority of courts by punishing acts that lower
public respect for the justice system.
3. Balancing Freedom of Speech and Justice: While protecting free speech under Article 19(1)(a), the Act restricts
speech that obstructs or interferes with justice delivery.
4. Providing Legal Safeguards and Fair Procedure: The Act allows defenses like truth in public interest and
ensures proper hearing before punishing any person for contempt.
5. To Prevent Misuse of Contempt Power: By clearly defining contempt and laying down procedures, the Act
prevents arbitrary or excessive use of power by the judiciary.
6. To Harmonize Indian Law with Constitution: The Act aligns the contempt law with fundamental rights and the
constitutional spirit, especially Article 19 and Article 129/215.

1. P.D Gupta vs Ram Murthi

Facts of the Case
After Srikishan Das died in 1980, his alleged sister Vidyawati filed a case to manage his estate. Ram Murti
and others challenged this, showing different wills.
P.D. Gupta, Vidyawati’s lawyer, bought part of the disputed property and helped his son-in-law buy another
part — while the case was still pending and Vidyawati’s rights weren’t yet decided. He didn’t inform the court about
these purchases.
BCI’s Findings
Complaint transferred from Delhi Bar Council to BCI due to delay proceedings.
BCI held that Gupta’s actions were unethical and violated Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Suspended for I year.
Supreme Court Observations
Advocates must uphold the integrity and purity of justice. Buying disputed property while still acting as a lawyer in
the same matter is clearly misconduct.
Gupta’s defense (that the sale was voluntary and no harm was done) was rejected. The conflict of interest and failure
to disclose the transaction breached professional ethics.
The Supreme Court upheld the BCI’s punishment of one-year suspension from legal practice.
Ethical Insight:
Lawyers must avoid personal interest in cases they handle. Even perceived misuse of position damages public
confidence in justice.
1. Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju
Facts of the Case
Advocate Harish Chandra Tiwari was hired by Baiju for a land acquisition compensation case. On 2nd September
1987, Tiwari withdrew the compensation amount but did not inform or return the money to Baiju.
Later, Baiju filed a complaint that Tiwari claimed he had returned the money after deducting his fees and filed an
affidavit saying they had settled the matter — but Baiju denied this. The affidavit was found to be fake.
BCI Finding’s
The affidavit was fabricated. Tiwari had misappropriated funds. He tried to mislead the inquiry.
Punishment: Suspended from practice for 3 years.
Supreme Court Judgment
The Court upheld the findings and went further. Called it a serious breach of trust and deliberate misconduct.
Ruled: Tiwari’s name was removed from the roll of advocates — he was disbarred.
Legal Analysis:
Professional Misconduct: The advocate misappropriated client funds, violating trust and fiduciary responsibility.
Fabrication of Evidence: The false affidavit amounted to an attempt to mislead the Bar Council.
Supreme Court's Stand: Misappropriation + deception was seen as grave misconduct, justifying disbarment.
Ethical Insight:
Advocates are guardians of client trust. Misusing client money breaches both legal ethics and morality.
Fabricating compromise reflects dishonesty and intent to escape liability.

2. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (Contempt & Suspension Case)
Fact of the Case:
An advocate was found guilty of criminal contempt for using rude and threatening language to intimidate the court.
He was sentenced to 6 months of simple imprisonment (suspended for 4 years) and barred from practising law for 3
years. The Supreme Court Bar Association challenged this, arguing that only Bar Councils have the power to suspend
or disbar advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Supreme Court Judgement
It has the power to punish for contempt, but it cannot punish advocates for professional misconduct (like suspending
their licence) without following the procedure in the Advocates Act, 1961.
Article 142 (to do complete justice) cannot override statutory laws like the Advocates Act.
Only the Bar Council has the authority to suspend or remove an advocate from practice for misconduct.
Legal Analysis:
Contempt vs. Misconduct: The Court held that while courts can punish for contempt, only Bar Councils can suspend
an advocate's license for professional misconduct.
Article 142 Limitations: Even under its wide powers, the Court cannot bypass procedures under the Advocates Act.
Courts cannot directly suspend an advocate’s license while punishing for contempt—must refer to Bar Council.
Ethical Insight:
 Upholds the principle of procedural fairness—even wrongdoers are entitled to due process.
 Maintains separation of powers between judiciary and Bar Council.
3. Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry
Facts of the Case:
An advocate, wrote a letter to his client suggesting that a judge could be bribed for a favourable judgment.
He mentioned either sending Rs 10,000 through another client or personally influencing the judge. This letter led to
a complaint of misconduct.
BCI Findings
Bar Council of Rajasthan: Suspended the advocate for 2 years.
On appeal, increased punishment to permanent debarment (struck off from advocate roll).
Review Petition: Advocate filed a review; punishment was reduced to just a reprimand.
Supreme Court held that review power cannot be used to change the outcome on the same facts without valid new
grounds. The original punishment of permanent debarment was restored.
Legal Analysis:
 Advocate’s Letter = Corruption Advocacy: Suggesting a client bribe a judge is serious professional
misconduct.
 Review Abuse: The Bar Council’s review that reduced lifetime suspension to a reprimand was seen as a
misuse of power.
Ethical Insight:
 An advocate trying to influence judicial officers undermines public faith in justice.
 Bar Council is expected to discipline lawyers, not shield them.

4. ExCapt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India

Facts of the Case:
Harish Uppal, a retired army captain, was court-martialled in 1972 and imprisoned. He later tried to challenge this but
faced severe delays in court due to a lawyers’ strike. Frustrated, he filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court,
questioning the legality of such strikes.
Judgement:
Strikes or boycotts by lawyers are not a legal right. They obstruct justice and violate Article 21 (speedy trial). Strikes
may be allowed in "rarest of rare" cases, like national emergency, and even then only with advance notice. Lawyers
can protest via press releases, peaceful marches, etc., without disrupting court work.
Legal Analysis:
 No Right to Strike: Lawyers have no legal or constitutional right to strike or boycott courts.
 Strikes Harm Justice: Violates Article 21 (right to speedy trial) of clients.
 Only Rarest Exceptions: Strikes permitted only in national-level emergencies, with advance notice.
Ethical Insight:
 Lawyers have public duty to courts and clients. Strikes show disregard for justice and litigant rights.
 Responsibility must override collective protest motives.
Case Analysis: P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikaram & Ors. (1964)
Factual Background:
Advocate P.J. Ratnam received Rs. 1,452.4/- through a court cheque during litigation on behalf of his clients.
After the clients lost in the second appeal, they demanded the money back. Ratnam failed to return the amount and
claimed he had already paid it—without any proof.
Issues Raised:
Was the act of not returning the client’s money professional misconduct?
Were the procedural irregularities (like Bar Council consultation and complaint formality) enough to set aside the
punishment?
Findings by Lower Courts:
The District Judge gave him benefit of doubt.
The High Court reversed it, found him guilty of misconduct, and suspended him for 5 years.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
Consultation with Bar Council was presumed valid. Even if complaint form had flaws, High Court had suo motu
power under the Bar Councils Act.
Misconduct can be punished professionally, even if not criminally prosecuted. The plaintiff’s statement that the
money was received was false and unreliable. No prejudice was shown in procedure.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court upheld the 5-year suspension. Held that failure to account for client funds is serious
misconduct. Dismissed all procedural and factual objections.
Ethical Insight:
An advocate must be transparent with client funds.
Even unintentional mismanagement of money can amount to gross professional misconduct.