Problem based for Professional Misconduct
An Advocate must act prudently, legally and cautiously. There are several ethics and
etiquette controlling the conduct (functions) of the Advocates which impose certain duties
upon the Advocates. Every Advocate must follow these duties, because these duties are part
and parcel of the 'Professional Ethics and Etiquette. Whoever fails to oblige them, such an
Advocate is said to have committed “Professional Misconduct” and be punished accordingly.
Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides a framework for dealing with the
professional misconduct of an advocate. It empowers the State Bar Council to take action
against an advocate if they are found guilty of misconduct in the course of their professional
duties.
Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 lays down the powers of the Bar Council of India to
prescribe the standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, which includes
norms on how they should behave both in and out of court.
Problem based for Contempt of Court
Contempt of Court refers to actions that disrespect or disobey the authority, justice, and
dignity of the court. It can include acts like shouting slogans in court premises, or making
statements that challenge or disrupt judicial proceedings.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines and regulates contempt of court. Section 2 of
this Act distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt:
Civil contempt refers to willful disobedience of any judgment, order, or direction of a
court.
Criminal contempt involves actions that scandalize or lower the authority of the
court, or prejudices or obstructs the administration of justice.
“Criminal Contempt “ Sec 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines: "Criminal
Contempt' means the publication ether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by
visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which,- (I) scandalises, or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of,
any Court; or (II)prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any
judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner
DIRECT CONTEMPT: A direct contempt is an open insult in the presence of the Court
to person of the presiding Judge, or defiance in his presence to his powers or authority or
procedure thereof. It is directly done. It is done in the presence of the Judge. 2.
CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT: It is also called "Indirect Contempt". A constructive
Contempt is an act done not in the presence of the Court, but at a distance which tends to
belittle, to degrade, obstruct, interrupt, prevent, or embarrass the administration of justice.
It is indirectly done. It is done interrupt, prevent, or embarrass the administration of
justice. It is indirectly done. It is done in the absence of the Judge. It is be done outside
the Court
If criminal contempt: ‘Mens rea' (ill intention) is an essential ingredient in criminal case.
However concept of mens rea cannot be applied to the contemner in criminal contempt
cases.
If an advocate, like Mr. A, shouts slogans that directly or indirectly interfere with the functioning of
the court or undermine its authority, such conduct may qualify as criminal contempt.
12. Punishment for contempt of court.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in
any other law, 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: Provided
that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being
made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Shouting slogans in a manner that is disruptive or defamatory towards the judiciary can amount to
criminal contempt if it is likely to undermine the dignity or authority of the court. If Mr. A shouted
slogans that were derogatory or disrespectful towards the court or its officials, it could be construed
as scandalizing the court, which is a form of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Acts of an Advocate, which can be treated as contempts of Court: An Advocate is a Court officer. Bar
is one of the two wheels of chariot and another wheels is Bench. He is part and parcel of the Court
and its proceedings. While performing his duties, he should act with dignity, politeness and decorum.
However, some of the following acts can be treated as contempt of Court:-
(a) scandalizing the Court;
(b) alleging partiality to Court;
(c) using offensive language;
(d) making threatening gestures;
(e) threatening the Judge or Magistrate or any other Court officer;
(f) encouraging gallery of the Court to bring Court into contempt;
(g) false allegations against a Judge;
(h) sending applications to higher Courts against a Judge alleging false imputations;
(i) resolution by a Bar Association against a Judge and releasing it to newspapers to degrade such
Judge;
(j) bribing to Court officers or to a Judge (If that Court officer or Judges takes bribe he is said to have
committed Contempt to Court);
(k) shouting in the Court than is necessary;
(1) disturbing a Court proceeding;
(m) gherave of a Judge;
(n) Keeping weapons with him in the Court,
(0) Creating forgery documents;
(p) attesting an affidavit signed by another person as that of the original deponent;
(q) manipulating Court Orders;
(r) making disparage remarks against the Court or judge;
(s) boycotting the Court or Court proceeding:
(t) disobedience of Court order,
(u) where an Advocate is the contemnor, and does not attend the Court while the contempt
proceeding takes place (Appearance of contemner is mandatory under Rule 18 of A.P. High Court
Contempt of Court Rules unless the court dispenses with his appearance);
(v) vitimization of witness of opponent;
(w) failure to appear despite service of notice;
(x) withdrawal from the case without giving notice to the client.
(y) shouting slogans in open court and hurling his shoe towards Court;
(z) any kind of interference with judicial dicision-making; etc.
. In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 SCC 343
Facts: Arundhati Roy, a writer and activist, was held in contempt of court for making
statements that undermined the authority of the judiciary. She had made critical comments
against the judiciary, calling its actions "illegal" and "undemocratic" in the context of the
Narmada Dam issue.
Relevance: This case emphasizes that public statements or actions that scandalize or lower
the authority of the judiciary can amount to criminal contempt. If Mr. A shouted slogans in a
similar manner that criticized or attacked the court or its members, this case could be
relevant to establish contempt of court.
Bar Council of India v. M.V. Dabholkar, AIR 1990 SC 1335
Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that an advocate's conduct that brings
disrepute to the court and the legal profession can amount to contempt of court.
Relevance: If an advocate, such as Mr. A, shouted slogans in a manner that questioned or
challenged the authority of the court, this case could be cited to argue that such conduct
amounts to contempt, as it lowers the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar, AIR 1988 SC 1208
Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court held that any act that tends to interfere with the
administration of justice or disrespects the authority of the court is liable to be treated as
contempt of court.
Relevance: If the slogans shouted by Mr. A were disruptive to the judicial process or
attempted to discredit the court, this case can be cited to argue that such actions could lead
to contempt charges.