Here is a detailed and easy-to-understand explanation of the case Shambhu Ram Yadav vs
Hanuman Das Khatry, covering facts, procedural history, issues, judgment, and key
observations without missing any important point:
Facts of the Case
Hanuman Das Khatry (the respondent) was an advocate who wrote a letter to his
client, Mahant Rajgiri, during a civil case.
In the letter, he informed Mahant that another one of his clients told him the judge
hearing their case accepted bribes.
He said that this judge had already passed several favourable orders in exchange for
money.
The advocate suggested that Mahant should try to influence the judge through another
person or else send Rs. 10,000 through the other client to get a favourable decision.
He even wrote that if Mahant could personally win over the judge, then money
wouldn’t be necessary.
Procedural History
1.
Complaint to Bar Council of Rajasthan
Shambhu Ram Yadav (the appellant) filed a complaint against advocate Hanuman
Das Khatry before the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
The matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council.
2.
Respondent’s Defense
Hanuman Das admitted that he wrote the letter.
He claimed the judge was already known for taking bribes, and he was just protecting
his client by informing him.
He also claimed no bribe was actually given and no money was sent to him by
Mahant.
3.
State Bar Council’s Decision
The Bar Council of Rajasthan found the contents of the letter to be misconduct.
The council suspended Hanuman Das Khatry for 2 years, effective from June 15,
1997.
4.
Appeal to Bar Council of India
Hanuman Das challenged the suspension before the Bar Council of India.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India looked into the case again
and found the misconduct more serious.
On July 31, 1999, they increased the punishment and struck off Hanuman Das’s name
from the roll of advocates — permanently debarring him from practicing law.
5.
Review Petition
Hanuman Das filed a review petition under Section 44 of the Advocates Act.
On June 4, 2000, the committee allowed the review petition.
They reduced the punishment to a mere reprimand (a warning), reversing the earlier
harsh punishment.
6.
Reinstatement of Original Order
The reduction of punishment caused concern and was challenged.
The case was brought before the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised
1. Can the Bar Council of India review its own punishment and give a different decision
on the same facts?
2. Does writing to a client that a judge accepts bribes and suggesting giving Rs 10,000
amount to serious professional misconduct?
3. What is the responsibility of the Bar Council as a disciplinary body?
Judgment by the Supreme Court
1.
Power of Review
The Supreme Court held that Section 44 does allow the Bar Council to review its own
orders.
However, the court clarified that a review should not be used to change the decision
just because of a different opinion on the same facts.
The July 31, 1999 order was passed after carefully examining all facts, and the review
committee had no new reasons to change it.
The June 4, 2000 order reducing the punishment was based on non-existent grounds
and therefore invalid.
2.
Serious Misconduct
The Court took a very serious view of the advocate’s conduct.
It found no evidence to support the idea that Hanuman Das had no intention to bribe
the judge.
The court emphasized that even suggesting a bribe or saying the judge could be
influenced was unacceptable.
It held that such conduct showed the advocate was unfit to remain in the profession.
Lawyers are officers of the court and have a duty to uphold justice and integrity.
3.
Duty of the Disciplinary Committee
The court highlighted the role of Bar Councils as guardians of professional ethics.
They must supervise the conduct of lawyers and take strict action when lawyers act
unethically.
If Bar Councils fail to take strong action, the public loses faith in the legal profession.
The court said that the punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the
misconduct.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the review order passed on June 4, 2000 (which had only
reprimanded the advocate).
It restored the original order of the Bar Council of India dated July 31, 1999, which
had permanently debarred Hanuman Das Khatry from practicing law.
The court stressed that such misconduct deserved strict punishment to maintain the
dignity of the legal profession.
Key Takeaways
Lawyers must maintain high ethical standards — even writing about influencing a
judge is serious misconduct.
Bar Councils must act strongly and fairly to protect the reputation of the legal
profession.
The review power under Section 44 is limited and cannot be misused to change well-
reasoned decisions.
Integrity and public trust in the legal system must be preserved at all costs.
Let me know if you want this in a summarized bullet format or converted into a study note
format for exams.
Here is the explanation of the text in simple and detailed language, without missing any
important point:
Case Title: SC BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Facts of the Case (Simplified):
In an earlier case, the Supreme Court found an advocate named Vinay Chandra
Mishra guilty of criminal contempt of court.
What did he do wrong? He tried to interfere with and obstruct the course of justice.
He used insulting, disrespectful, and threatening language towards the court. This is a
serious offense because it attacks the dignity and authority of the court.
The Supreme Court used its special powers under Article 129 and Article 142 of the
Indian Constitution to deal with this case.
o Article 129: Gives the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of
itself.
o Article 142: Allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do
complete justice in any case.
The Court sentenced Vinay Chandra Mishra to a punishment that included
imprisonment and suspension of his right to practice as an advocate.
The Sentence Given (In Detail):
(a) The Court gave the following punishment:
Vinay Chandra Mishra was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six weeks (this
means jail time, but not with hard labor).
However, the Court decided to suspend this sentence for a period of four years. What
does this mean?
→ He does not have to go to jail right away.
→ But if he commits any other contempt of court within the next four years, this jail
sentence will be activated and he will have to serve it.
In simple terms, he was given a warning and a chance to behave properly for four
years. If he does, he won’t be jailed. If not, he will face the punishment.
Key Points to Remember:
1. Vinay Chandra Mishra was found guilty of contempt of court for misbehaving and
using disrespectful language toward the court.
2. The Supreme Court used its special powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the
Constitution.
3. He was sentenced to six weeks of simple imprisonment.
4. The imprisonment was suspended for four years, meaning he wouldn’t go to jail
unless he misbehaved again.
5. His right to practice law as an advocate was also suspended.
6. If he is found guilty of contempt again within the four years, the sentence will be
enforced.
Let me know if you’d like this in Hindi or want a summary/flowchart version!
Here’s the complete explanation in simple and clear language of the second page you
uploaded. I’ve broken it down in sections for better understanding:
🔴 (b) Additional Punishment to Vinay Chandra Mishra:
Apart from the six-week jail sentence (which was suspended), the Supreme Court also
suspended his license to practice law for three years from that day.
This means:
o He could not work as an advocate for 3 years.
o All the positions or posts he held as an advocate, either elected or nominated
(like being a member of a Bar Council or committee), were taken away
immediately.
📜 Petition Filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA):
The Supreme Court Bar Association was unhappy with this decision and filed a writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution. They wanted the Court to reconsider its power to
suspend a lawyer’s license. The petition requested:
1. A declaration or direction stating that:
o Only Bar Councils (under the Advocates Act, 1961) have the power to punish
advocates for professional or other misconduct.
o This means only the Bar Council can suspend or stop a lawyer from practicing
law, even if the misconduct is due to contempt of court.
2. A declaration that:
o The Supreme Court or any High Court does not have the original power to
take away a lawyer’s right to practice law.
o The Court can punish for contempt, but cannot suspend a lawyer’s license —
that power belongs only to the Bar Council.
❓ Issue Raised in the Case:
The big legal question in this case was:
Can the Supreme Court debar (stop) an advocate from practicing
law by suspending his license (Sanad) if he is found guilty of
contempt of court, using its powers under Article 129 and Article
142?
⚖️Judgment (Explained Simply):
The Court referred to:
Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
o It says that if a person is guilty of contempt, the punishment can be:
(a) Simple imprisonment, or
(b) Fine, or
(c) Both.
But Section 12(2) says:
o The court should not give a sentence harsher than necessary.
o That means only fine should be given unless justice demands imprisonment.
Section 12(3) confirms:
o The usual punishment is fine.
o Imprisonment is the exception, and the court must explain clearly why it is
necessary.
A case cited:
o Smt. Pushpan v. Narandas V. Badiani (1979):
The Supreme Court said that normally a fine is enough.
Imprisonment should be used only when justice requires it, and proper
reasons should be recorded.
📌 Final Important Point (Bottom of the Page):
The last paragraph says:
Suspending the license to practice of any professional like a
lawyer, doctor, or chartered accountant, just because they
are found guilty of contempt of court, is a very serious
matter.
o This shows the importance of fair procedure and proper authority before
taking away a professional’s right to work.
✅ Summary in Simple Points:
1. Vinay Chandra Mishra was also barred from practicing law for 3 years, and had to
vacate all his official positions.
2. The Supreme Court Bar Association disagreed and filed a petition saying only the Bar
Council has the power to suspend a lawyer’s license, not the Court.
3. The Court discussed what punishment is allowed under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. The law prefers a fine over imprisonment, and imprisonment should be given only
with strong reasons.
5. Suspending someone’s professional license is a serious issue and needs proper legal
backing.
Let me know if you’d like this in chart form, or translated into Hindi!
