News By/Courtesy: Anakha Angeline Anilesh | 07 Feb 2019 20:14pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Supreme Court has quashed Rules 14- A to 14-D of the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 holding that they are ultra vires to Section 34 of the Advocates Act
  • Lawyer R. Muthukrishnan, had filed a writ petition before the Apex court challenging vires of amended Rules 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D of the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970.
  • The court observed that the power to debar due to contempt of court is a different aspect than suspension of enrolment or debarment by way of disciplinary measure.

The Supreme Court has quashed Rules 14- A to 14-D of the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 holding that they are ultra vires to Section 34 of the Advocates Act and usurps the power of the Bar Council in Disciplinary matters. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that the Advocates Act never intended to confer the disciplinary powers upon the High Court or Supreme Court except to the extent dealing with an appeal under Section 38 of the Act. 

Lawyer R. Muthukrishnan, had filed a writ petition before the Apex court challenging vires of amended Rules 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D of the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 made by the High Court of Madras under section 34(1) of the Advocates' Act, 1961. Rule 14-A in the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970, introduced through an amendment in 2016, empowered the High Court to debar an Advocate from practicing. Rule 14-B empowered the Principal District Judge to initiate action against the Advocate concerned and debar him from appearing before any court within such District. Rule 14-C prescribed the procedure to be followed. Rule 14-D empowers the court to pass an interim order prohibiting the Advocate concerned from appearing before the High Court or the subordinate courts.

Referring to the provisions of the Advocates Act, the bench observed that, the Act has never intended to confer the disciplinary powers upon the High Court or upon this Court except to the extent dealing with an appeal under Section 38. The court observed that the power to debar due to contempt of court is a different aspect than suspension of enrolment or debarment by way of disciplinary measure. The court said that, though the High Court may punish an advocate for contempt and then debar him from practicing for such specified period as may be permissible in accordance with law, but no such punishment can be imposed by way of disciplinary control. The court also observed that the debarment cannot be ordered by the High Court until and unless advocate is prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Section Editor: Shreyashi Tiwari | 07 Feb 2019 20:18pm IST


Tags : #Madras #HC #Rules #Disciplinary #Measure #Contempt #Ultra #Vires #Advocates #Act #Section34

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.