1. Anand v.

Registrar, Delhi High Court – (2009) 8 SCC 106

Supreme Court (BN Agarwal J., GS Singhvi J., and Aftab Alam J.)

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 On January 10, 1999 at about half past four in the morning a speeding vehicle crashed
through a police check-post on one of the Delhi roads and drove away leaving behind
six people dead or dying.
 The police investigation brought to light that the accident was caused by a black
BMW car which was being driven by Sanjeev Nanda. He was returning from a late-
night party, under the influence of liquor, along with some friend(s)
 In 2007, NDTV exposed the nexus between the witness, defence lawyer, and public
prosecutor I U Khan who were caught on hidden camera trying to fix the witness.
 Delhi HC took suo- moto cognizance of the expose and found both lawyers to be
guilty. They were barred from practicing in the Delhi Courts for four months and
stripped off their seniority.

B. ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the conviction of the two appellants, i.e. RK Anand and I U Khan for
committing criminal contempt of court is justified and sustainable?
2. Whether it was open to the High Court to prohibit the appellants from appearing
before the High Court and the courts sub-ordinate to it for a specified period as one
of the punishments for criminal contempt of court?

C. RULES APPLICABLE

• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;

• Section 34, Advocates Act, 1961;
• Article 145 and 215, Constitution of India, 1950.

D. ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court on a careful consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that the
High Court had erred in its final decision though it concurred on the point that Khan’s
conduct was inappropriate for a lawyer in general and a prosecutor in particular. But it
said that there was a wide gap between professional misconduct and criminal contempt of
court.

The Supreme Court felt that Khan’s behaviour only amounted to criminal contempt of
court. A major factor that influenced the court was that the transcript of the conversation
between Khan and Kulkarni was incomplete and it was difficult to ascertain with
certainty that “Bade Sahab” was a reference to Anand. The Court stated that what needs
to be given weightage was what IU Khan understood by the reference and not what
Kulkarni meant by it. Since it was difficult to determine this, Supreme Court acquitted
Khan but gave the final discretion to The Full Court of the Delhi High Court on the
question of whether or not to continue the honour of Senior Advocate conferred on him in
light of the findings recorded in the Supreme Court judgment.
The Apex Court gave directions to High Courts not having framed rules under Section 34
of Advocates Act to frame rules within four months. The Rules should indicate need for
specific notice to be issued when punishment of debarring an Advocate from practice be
imposed. Telecast of sting operation exposing collusion between defence counsel and
prosecutor did not amount to contempt of court but the programme was intended to
prevent an attempt to interfere with or obstruct the due course of a pending matter. It
was in larger public interest and served an important public cause. Grave concerns and
dismay expressed on the decline of ethical and professional standards amongst lawyers.
Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of different States cannot escape their
responsibility. High Court’s powers of superintendence over subordinate judiciary and
power of control should also be exercised to protect them from external interference that
may sometimes appear overpowering to them and to support them to discharge their
duties fearlessly. Criminal justice system should be insulated from external influences
aimed to subvert trials.

E. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

In light of the discussions made above the Court observed that the appeal filed by IU
 Khan should have been allowed and his conviction for criminal contempt is set aside. The
period of four month's prohibition from appearing in Delhi High Court and the courts
sub-ordinate to it is already over. The punishment of fine given to him by the High Court
is liable to be set aside. The Full Court of the Delhi High Court may still consider whether
or not to continue the honour of Senior Advocate conferred on him in light of the findings
recorded in this judgment. Further those of the High Courts which have so far not framed
any rules under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, shall frame appropriate rules without
any further delay as directed in paragraph 147 of the judgment.

2. A.S. Mohd. Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu - AIR 2011 SC 308.

Supreme Court (Markandey Katju J. And GS Misra, J.)

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
 The accused and a female police constable dashed against each other at the
Coimbatore bus stand.
 The accused by abused and beaten up by four police constables, due to which he
suffered a lot of physical pain and deformity.
 A complain was filled against the accused alleging interalia that he was engaged in
outraging modesty of a women.
 The Bar Association of Coimbatore passed a resolution that no member of the bar will
defend the accused before the Madras High Court.

B. ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether it was not unprofessional to refuse to render legal assistance, went unanswered
by the representatives of the Bar?
2. Whether there is any moral or legal justification to involve their association when the
issue has nothing to do with the discharge of his professional duties?

C. RULES APPLICABLE

• Article 22(1) and Article 142, Constitution of India, 1950.

• Chapter II, Bar Council of India Rules.
 D. ANALYSIS

The matter which came up in the case is of great legal and constitutional importance.
Professional ethics requires that a lawyer cannot refuse a brief, provided a client is willing to
pay his fee, and the lawyer is not otherwise engaged. Hence, the action of any Bar
Association in passing such a resolution that none of its members will appear for a particular
accused, whether on the ground that he is a policeman or on the ground that he is a suspected
terrorist, rapist, mass murderer, etc. is against all norms of the Constitution, the Statute and
professional ethics. It is against the great traditions of the Bar which has always stood up for
defending persons accused for a crime. Such a resolution is, in fact, a disgrace to the legal
community.
Every person, however, wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, perverted, loathsome, execrable,
vicious or repulsive he may be regarded by society has a right to be defended in a court of
law and correspondingly it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him. Further Article 22(1) is
one such provision which makes it mandatory for the state to provide the guilty a
representative to defend him in against all charges against him.
As a matter of professional ethics Chapter II of the Rules of Bar Association of India
provides for `Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette', as follows: "An advocate is
bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities in or
before which he proposes to practice at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the
nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief.”
The court declared that all such resolutions of Bar Associations in India are null and void and
the right-minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions if they want democracy and
rule of law to be upheld in this country. It is the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the
consequences, and a lawyer who refuses to do so is not following the rules of Bar Council.

E. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

In the earlier impugned judgement, it was stated that it is certainly open to the members of
the Bar to help and aid an advocate in distress in any manner. In this very case the helping
hand extended by the members of the Bar to Mr. Mohammed Rafi cannot be objected to. The
officer bearers can certainly take care of the situation and do all the needful. If the
expectations are not fulfilled, Bar can certainly take up the matter with higher authorities or
complain to the Committee which has been formed by the High Court to go into clashes
between police and advocates, even in cases where the clash relates to the performance of
professional duty by the advocates. But no right- thinking citizen will endorse the
involvement of the association vis-a-vis an advocate as an ordinary citizen and the issue has
nothing to do with performance of his professional duties, and the Association indulging in
road block and boycott of courts etc. Redressal for any grievance, must be only in accordance
with law and this is what any lawyer will advise his client, same applies when lawyers are
aggrieved too. The State Government is directed to pay to the second petitioner a
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for violation of his human rights by the police officers and the
State is at liberty to recover this amount from the erring officials. But there was an appeal to
this impugned order in 2011 in which stated that an advocate is bound to accept any brief in
the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities in or before which he proposes to
practice at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special
circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly with no costs.
 3. In Re: Arundhati Roy - (2002) 3 SCC 343
Supreme Court (G.B. Patnaik J. And R.P. Sethi J.)

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• This case concerns a Suo-moto contempt petition (that is, a petition initiated by the Court
on its own motion) against the Respondent, Arundhati Roy.
• During the course of a writ petition by grassroots-movement Narmada Bachao Andolan,
the Court addressed issues of environmental damage and displacement of marginalized
communities due to the development of a reservoir dam on the river Narmada.
• Following a Supreme Court order that allowed for the height of the dam to be increased,
the Respondent wrote an article criticizing this decision. Subsequently, protests were
staged in front of the gates of the Supreme Court by Narmada Bachao Andolan and the
Respondent. This led to contempt proceedings based on a complaint lodged with the
police.
• During the proceedings, all Respondents denied the allegations concerning specific
slogans and banners and the proceedings were dropped. On the basis of the above
averments, Suo moto contempt proceedings were initiated against the Respondent for
imputing motives to the Court.
• In her reply affidavit to the contempt notice, the author reiterated her stance and stressed
her continuous dissent against the decision of the Supreme Court. She further noted that
she believed this to be a matter of her right to express her opinions as a citizen as well as
a writer.

B. ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the given set of circumstances warrants for a condition wherein the respondent
is show caused and contempt proceedings be initiated against her?

C. RULES APPLICABLE

• Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 12,

Section 14, Section 14(2) and Section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;
 • Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India, 1950

D. ANALYSIS

The Apex Court firstly stated that freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the
Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, one of such reasonable
restriction being the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 which, amongst other objectives, is
directed at maintaining the dignity and the integrity of the courts and the judiciary. The Court
dismissed the Respondent’s argument that the issue of whether truth could be pleaded as a
defense to contempt proceedings had to be determined as irrelevant. The Court went on to say
that the affidavit as a whole was not being considered for contempt but that part which made
allegations questioning the integrity of the Court. It stated that the purpose of contempt
proceedings was not to preserve an individual judge’s reputation but to maintain public
confidence in the judicial system. The Court explained that Judicial criticism must not be
based on a gross misstatement and must not be directed at lowering the reputation of the
judiciary. The Court considered that the Respondent’s statement was not based on any
understanding of the law or the judicial system. It said that her statements alleging the
judiciary’s willingness to issue notice on “an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated
petition” whilst exhibiting a lack of willingness to entertain a case concerning “national
security and corruption in the highest places” and its intention to silence criticism along with
her lack of remorse, made it difficult “to shrug off or to hold the unsubstantiated accusations
made as comments of an outspoken ordinary man”. Accordingly, the Court found the
Respondent guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced her to “symbolic” imprisonment of one
day and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 with the proviso that if she failed to pay the fine she
would be imprisoned for three months.

E. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court of India found the Respondent guilty of contempt of court for alleging in
an affidavit that the Supreme Court was muzzling dissent and criticism. The Court opined
thatby scandalizing its authority with malafide intentions the Respondent was held to be guilty
for the contempt of court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
The Court sentenced her to one day’s ‘symbolic’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000. The
Court reasoned that freedom of speech and expression was not absolute but subject to
restrictions prescribed by law, one such law being the Contempt of Courts Act which aims,
among other things, to maintain confidence in and uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
Further, the Court found that the Respondent’s statements were not made in good faith and in
the public interest and therefore could not be considered fair judicial criticism.

4. Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P. – AIR 2016 SC 3302

Supreme Court (Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, Adarsh Kumar Goel)

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
• An appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the
judgment and order delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the
High Court found the appellant guilty of Criminal Contempt for intimidating and
threatening a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah and sentenced him to simple
imprisonment of two months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-
• 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, and to initiate
appropriate proceedings against the appellant for professional misconduct.
• The appeal was admitted by Supreme Court and the part of the impugned judgment,
which imposed the sentence, was stayed and the appellant was directed not to enter the
Court premises at Etah. Notice was issued to the Supreme Court Bar Association, Bar
Council of India and to the Attorney General.

B. ISSUES INVOLVED
1. Whether Court has jurisdiction vis-à-vis statutory power of Bar Council on conviction of an
advocate for criminal contempt and his right to practice?

C. RULES APPLICABLE
• Section 19, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;
• Section 34, Advocates Act, 1961;
• Article 129, Constitution of India, 1950.
 D. ANALYSIS

In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, the court while examining its powers
under Article 129 of the Constitution with regard to awarding sentence of imprisonment
together with suspension of his practice as an Advocateheld that while in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction, this Court cannot take over jurisdiction of disciplinary committee of the Bar
Council and it is for the Bar Council to punish the advocate by debarring him from practice or
suspending his licence. It was further held that this court or the High Court can prevent the
contemnor advocate from appearing before it or other courts till he purges himself of the
contempt which is different from suspending or revoking the licence or debarring him to
practice.
In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court with reference to Section 34 of the Advocates
Act, it was held that the court has a right to bar the advocate concerned from appearing before
the courts for an appropriate period of time. Regulation of right of appearance in courts is
within the jurisdiction of the courts. In the present case, in spite of direction of the High Court
as long back as more than ten years, no action was taken by the Bar Council. 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.
In Supreme Court Bar Association, it was held that where the Bar Council fails to take action
inspite of reference made to it, this Court can invoke its appellate power under Section 38 of
the Advocates Act and exercise suomotu powers for punishing the contemnor for professional
misconduct.

E. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court disposed of this appeal and upheld the conviction and the direction by the
Allahabad High Court that the advocate shall not be permitted to appear in courts in Etah
District until he purges himself of contempt. The Court also held Section 24A of the
Advocates Act applies to an advocate also and under this the enrolment of the contemnor
Advocate will stand suspended for two years. Supreme Court also observed that there is an
urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanism
for the legal profession. It has requested the Law commission and Government of India to take
appropriate steps in this regard. In view of above the Law Commission of India had
undertaken a study and requested the Bar Council of India and all State Bar Councils, Bar
Association of the Supreme Court and Advocates on Records Association of Supreme Court,
Advocates Associations’ in the High Courts and their respective Benches to send their
comments.