All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 3-III Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:
21.

A, an advocate, is found to have committed contempt of the Supreme Court by trying to influence a judge of the Court. A's punishment for contempt, the Supreme Court directs that A's licence to practice as an advocate be cancelled. Can the Supreme Court do that ?


Principle :

Article 129 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is a court of record. This means that its acts and judicial proceedings are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony, and that it has the authority to fine and imprison for contempt of itself.
A: Yes, the Supreme Court can cancel A's licence to practice as an advocate, since it is a court of record and has the power to punish for contempt of itself.
B: Yes, the Supreme Court can cancel A's licence to practice as an advocate, since it is the highest court in the land, and an advocate who is in contempt of the Supreme Court should not have a right to practice.
C: No, the Supreme Court cannot cancel A's licence to practice, since an advocate's licence to practice, once granted, is irrevocable on any ground whatsoever.
D: No the Supreme Court cannot do this, since its powers of punishment for contempt may extend to fine or imprisonment, but not to candling an advocate's licence to practice.
E: No, the Supreme Court cannot do this, since the act that A committed is not contemplated within the boundaries of advocate's duties an and responsibilities, and therefore, is entirely unconnected with the licence to practice.

The answer is: D

<< Previous Question
Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct option is D: No the Supreme Court cannot do this, since its powers of punishment for contempt may extend to fine or imprisonment, but not to cancelling an advocate's licence to practice.

This is because Article 129 of the Constitution, which provides that the Supreme Court is a court of record and has the power to punish for contempt of itself, does not specify the nature and extent of such punishment. However, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is a statutory law enacted by Parliament to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of courts, states in Section 12 that "a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both". Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot impose any punishment for contempt beyond what is prescribed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has itself held in several cases that it cannot suspend or revoke the licence of an advocate for contempt of court, as that power vests with the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Supreme Court can only prevent an advocate from appearing before it until he purges himself of the contempt, but that is different from cancelling his licence to practice as an advocate. The Supreme Court can also make rules to regulate the practice and procedure before it under Article 145 of the Constitution, but such rules cannot be inconsistent with any law made by Parliament. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot cancel A's licence to practice as an advocate by invoking its power to punish for contempt or its rule-making power.

The other options are incorrect because:

Option A is incorrect because it assumes that the power to punish for contempt includes the power to cancel an advocate's licence, which is not true as explained above.


Option B is incorrect because it ignores the fact that the Supreme Court is bound by the law made by Parliament, and cannot exercise its power to punish for contempt arbitrarily or excessively.


Option C is incorrect because it contradicts the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empower the Bar Council to suspend or cancel an advocate's licence on grounds of professional misconduct or other sufficient cause.


Option E is incorrect because it makes an irrelevant distinction between the act that A committed and his licence to practice. The question is not whether A's act was connected with his licence to practice, but whether the Supreme Court can cancel his licence as a punishment for contempt.