AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 849 ::AIROnline 2019 SC 60 ::(2019) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 365 ::(2019) 2 RecCivR 504 ::(2019) 2 Scale 263 ::2020 (2) SCC (Cri) 300 ::(2021) 3 Guj LH 141 (SC) ::2019 (2) KLT SN 4 (SC) ::(2019) 2 Mad LJ 543

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran , JJ

Advocates Act (25 of 1961) , S.34(1)— Rules of High Court of Madras (1970) , R.14A, R.14D— (inserted by Notification D/- 25.05.2016) - Power to debar Advocate to practice - Constitutional validity of Rules - Amended Rules 14-A and 14-D held to be ultra vires to S. 34 of Advocates Act and usurps power of Bar Council in Disciplinary matters. 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 practising. 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. Section 34 of the Act does not confer power to frame rules to debar lawyer for professional misconduct. The amendment made by providing Rule 14-A(vii) to (xii) is not authorized under the Advocate Act. The High Court has no power to exercise the disciplinary control. It would amount to usurpation of the power of Bar Council conferred under Advocates Act. However, the High Court may punish advocate for contempt and then debar him from practicing for such specified period as may be permissible in accordance with law, but without exercising contempt jurisdiction by way of disciplinary control no punishment can be imposed. As such impugned rules could not have been framed within the purview of Section 34. Provisions clear....