Pravin C. Shah v. K. A. Mohd. Ali and Another Civil Appeal No. 3050 of 2000; reported as (2001) 8 SCC 650

 

Case name: Pravin C. Shah v. K. A. Mohd. Ali and Another

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3050 of 2000; reported as (2001) 8 SCC 650​

Date of judgment: 9 October 2001​

Bench / Judges: K. T. Thomas and S. N. Variava, JJ. (judgment by K. T. Thomas, J.)​

 

Facts

The respondent, an advocate practising in Ernakulam, was twice found guilty of criminal contempt by the Kerala High Court and convicted under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, with fines imposed; his challenges in the Supreme Court failed save for deletion of one fine, and his apology was expressly rejected. Despite this, he continued to appear and argue cases. On a complaint by a residents’ association represented by the appellant, the Bar Council of Kerala initiated disciplinary proceedings and ordered that he be debarred from acting or pleading in any court until he purged himself of contempt as per Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. The Bar Council of India, on appeal, set aside this order, holding Rule 11 inapplicable as it allegedly usurped Bar Council powers. The association appealed to the Supreme Court.​

 

Judgment/Holdingthe 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the effect of Rule 11, holding that it is a self‑operating rule framed by the High Court to regulate appearance and conduct of advocates in court and does not trench upon the Bar Councils’ disciplinary jurisdiction over the right to practise. Once an advocate is found guilty of contempt, his right to appear, act or plead in any court within the High Court’s jurisdiction stands automatically suspended until he purges himself of contempt by genuine remorse and acceptance of apology by the competent court; mere undergoing of sentence or payment of fine is insufficient. The Bar Council of India erred in treating Rule 11 as unconstitutional or as an encroachment on its autonomy; courts retain supervisory control over who appears before them to protect their dignity and orderly functioning. The Court directed Registrars to inform all subordinate courts whenever an advocate is convicted for contempt so that the interdict is enforced until purge.​

 

Key observations

• The Court distinguished between the “right to practise” (a broader genus regulated by Bar Councils, including drafting, advising, etc.) and the “right to appear and conduct cases in court” (a species subject to the court’s own control via rules under section 34 Advocates Act).​
• Rule 11 concerns only in‑court appearance of an advocate found guilty of contempt; it does not impose disciplinary punishment or affect chamber practice, so it does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21.​
• Purging contempt in criminal contempt cases requires more than completion of sentence: it needs real contrition, a sincere apology accepted by the court through an order acknowledging purge; only then does the bar on appearance cease.​

 

Obiter dicta

• The judgment stresses that allowing a recently convicted contemnor to stand and argue in the same courts, “unaffected” by his contumacious conduct, would erode public confidence, corrode the court’s majesty, and undermine the justice system; hence courts must retain strict control over courtroom conduct.​
• It explains that disciplinary powers of Bar Councils (suspending or removing an advocate’s licence) and courts’ contempt powers (including restricting appearance until purge) are “separate and distinct” jurisdictions, both validly co‑existing under Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India.​
• The Court clarifies that apologies offered merely as a device to avoid punishment, without genuine remorse, do not amount to purging contempt, citing earlier cases like M. Y. Shareef, Mulk Raj, and M. B. Sanghi, and that “soft justice” in such situations is inappropriate.​