Professional Ethics

POWERS OF STATE BAR COUNCIL, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND SUPREME

COURT IN RESPECT OF PUNISHING ADVOCATES FOR PROFESSIONAL
MISCONDUCT

ABHAS JAISWAL
B.A.LL.B (HONS.)
ROLL NO. - 03

FACULTY OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

Under the able guidance of

Mr. Rajiv Sharma

1 | Page

Professional Ethics

ACKNOWLDGEMENT
Writing a project is not an easy task it requires hard labour, deep study and thorough
knowledge of the topic given. Thus who helped in making this project successful I would like
to express my deep feeling of gratitude towards them for being a hand of support for me
always.
First of all I would like to thank my subject teacher Mr. Rajiv Sharma who has given me
opportunity to make this project and enlightened me with the intricacy of the subject.
Secondly I would show my gratitude towards my friends who guided me all through making
this project successful. Lastly I would thank my family for being a support in each and every
thing required for completing this project.

Abhas Jaiswal
X semester
Section A

2 | Page

Professional Ethics

INDEX
Sr. No.
1.

Description
Acknowledgement

Page No.
2

2.

Introduction

3.

Meaning and Definition

4.
a
b
c

Authorities and it Power

State Bar Council
Bar Council of India
Supreme Court of India

8
8
9
11

5.

Bibliography

14

3 | Page

Professional Ethics

INTRODUCTION
Advocacy is a noble profession and an advocate is the most accountable, privileged and
erudite person of the society and his act are role model for the society, which are necessary to
be regulated. Professional misconduct is the behaviour outside the bounds of what is
considered acceptable or worthy of its membership by the governing body of a profession.
Professional misconduct refers to disgraceful or dishonourable conduct not befitting an
advocate. Chapter V of the Advocate Act, 1961, deals with the conduct of Advocates. It
describes provisions relating to punishment for professional and other misconducts. Section
35(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961, says, where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State
Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional
or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to it disciplinary committee. Generally
legal profession is not a trade or business, its a gracious, noble, and decontaminated
profession of the society. Members belonging to this profession should not encourage
deceitfulness and corruption, but they have to strive to secure justice to their clients. The
credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members
of the profession conduct themselves. Its a symbol of healthy relationship between Bar and
Bench.
The Advocates Act, 1961 as well Indian Bar Council are silent in providing exact definition
for professional misconduct because of its wide scope, though under Advocates Act, 1961 to
take disciplinary action punishments are prescribed when the credibility and reputation on the
profession comes under a clout on account of acts of omission and commission by any
member of the profession.

4 | Page

Professional Ethics

Meaning and Definition

Profession is a vocation requiring some significant body of knowledge that is applied with
high degree of consistency in the service of some relevant segment of society, by Hodge and
Johnson. Occupation especially one requiring advanced education and special training by A.
S.Hornby. It is different from other types of jobs, in the sense that it requires skills and these
skills will be improved with experience. The attributes of a profession as laid down by Dalton
E. McFarland are;
1) The existence of a body of specialized knowledge or techniques
2) Formalized method of acquiring training and experience
3) The establishment of representative organization with professionalism as its goal.
4) The formation of ethical codes for the guidance of conduct.
5) The charging of fees based on services but with due regards for the priority of service over
the desire for monetary rewards.
A person who carries/undertakes the profession is called a professional. Depending on the
profession a person undertakes, he/she is identified with a special name relevant to the
profession. Misconduct, according to Oxford dictionary means a wrongful, improper, or
unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated act. It is a behavior not conforming to prevailing
standards or laws, or dishonest or bad management, especially by persons entrusted or
engaged to act on another's behalf. The expression professional misconduct in the simple
sense means improper conduct. In law profession misconduct means an act done willfully
with a wrong intention by the people engaged in the profession. It means any activity or
behaviour of an advocate in violation of professional ethics for his selfish ends. If an act
creates disrespect to his profession and makes him unworthy of being in the profession, it
amounts to professional misconduct. In other word an act which disqualifies an advocate to
continue in legal profession. To understand the scope and implication of the term
misconduct, the context of the role and responsibility of an advocate should be kept in
mind. Misconduct is a sufficiently wide expression, and need not necessarily imply the
involvement of moral turpitude. Misconduct per se has been defined in the Blacks Law
Dictionary to be any transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, unlawful or improper behavior, willful in character, a dereliction of duty. In a
different context, the Supreme Court has opined that the word misconduct has no precise
meaning, and its scope and ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and
context wherein the term occurs. In has no precise meaning, and its scope and ambit has to be
construed with reference to the subject matter and context wherein the term occurs. In the
context of misconduct of an advocate, any conduct that in any way renders an advocate unfit
for the exercise of his profession, or is likely to hamper or embarrass the administration of
justice may be considered to amount to misconduct, for which disciplinary action may be
initiated. Darling J, defined the expression professional misconduct in, In re A Solicitor ex
parte the law society as, It is shown that the advocate in the pursuit of his profession has done
some thing with regard to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or
dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competeny, then it is open to
say that he is guilty of professional misconduct.
Misconduct is sufficiently comprehensive to include misfeasance as well as malfeasance and
is applied to the professional people, it include unprofessional acts even though they are not
inherently wrongful. The professional misconduct may consist the fact in any conduct, which
tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to alienate the favourable opinion which the
public should entertain concerning it. In state of Punjab v Ram Singh the supreme Court held
5 | Page

Professional Ethics

that the term misconduct may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong
behaviour, unlawful behaviour, willful in character, a forbidden act, a transgression of
established and definite rule of action or code of conduct, but not mere error of judgement,
carelessness or negligence in performance of duty.
The Supreme Court has, in some of its decisions, elucidated on the concept of misconduct,
and its application. In Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, a complaint was filed
by the appellant against an advocate to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, that while appearing in
a suit as a counsel, he wrote a letter stating that the concerned judge, before whom the suit is
pending accepts bribes, and asked for Rs. 10,000 to bribe and influence the judge to obtain a
favourable order. The Disciplinary Committee, holding that the advocate was guilty if
misconduct, stated that such an act made the advocate totally unfit to be a lawyer. The
Supreme Court, upholding the finding of the Rajasthan Bar Council held that the legal
profession is not a trade or business. Members belonging to the profession have a particular
duty to uphold the integrity of the profession and to discourage corruption in order to ensure
that justice is secured in a legal manner. The act of the advocate was misconduct of the
highest degree as it not only obstructed the administration of justice, but eroded the
reputation of the profession in the opinion of the public.
In another case, Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali the Supreme Court explored the
amplitude and extent of the words professional misconduct in Section 35 of the Advocates
Act. The facts of the case involved an advocate (appearing as a litigant in the capacity of the
respondent, and not an advocate in a rent control proceeding) assaulted and kicked the
complainant and asked him to refrain from proceeding with the case. The main issue in this
case was whether the act of the advocate amounted to misconduct, the action against which
could be initiated in the Bar Council, even though he was not acting in the capacity of an
advocate. It was upheld by the Supreme Court that a lawyer is obliged to observe the norms
of behaviour expected of him, which make him worthy of the confidence of the community in
him as an officer of the Court.
Therefore, inspite of the fact that he was not acting in his capacity as an advocate, his
behaviour was unfit for an advocate, and the Bar Council was justified in proceeding with the
disciplinary proceedings against him.
It may be noted that in arriving at the decision in the case, the Supreme Court carried out an
over-view of the jurisprudence of the courts in the area of misconduct of advocates. It
reiterated that the term misconduct is incapable of a precise definition. Broadly speaking, it
envisages any instance of breach of discipline. It means improper behaviour, intentional
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of standard of behaviour. The term may also
include wrongful intention, which is not a mere error of judgment. Therefore, misconduct,
though incapable of a precise definition, acquires its connotation from the context, the
delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of duty.
In N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shind, where the advocate of one of the parties was asking
for continuous adjournments to the immense inconvenience of the opposite party, it was held
by the Supreme Court that seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses
who were present without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a
dereliction of the duty that an advocate owed to the Court, amounting to misconduct.
Ultimately, as it has been upheld and reiterated that misconduct would cover any activity or
conduct which his professional brethren of good repute and competency would reasonably
regard as disgraceful or dishonourable. It may be noted that the scope of misconduct is not
6 | Page

Professional Ethics

restricted by technical interpretations of rules of conduct. This was proven conclusively in the
case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dahbolkar.
The facts under consideration involved advocates positioning themselves at the entrance to
the Magistrates courts and rushing towards potential litigants, often leading to an ugly
scrimmage to snatch briefs and undercutting of fees. The Disciplinary Committee of the state
Bar Council found such behavior to amount to professional misconduct, but on appeal to the
Bar Council of India, it was the Bar Council of India absolved them of all charges of
professional misconduct on the ground that the conduct did not contravene Rule 36 of the
Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette as the rule required solicitation of work
from a particular person with respect to a particular case, and this case did not meet all the
necessary criteria, and such method of solicitation could not amount to misconduct. This
approach of the Bar council of India was heavily reprimanded by the Supreme Court. It was
held that restrictive interpretation of the relevant rule by splitting up the text does not imply
that the conduct of the advocates was warranted or justified. The standard of conduct of
advocates flows from the broad cannons of ethics and high tome of behaviour. It was held
that professional ethics cannot be contained in a Bar Council rule nor in traditional cant in
the books but in new canons of conscience which will command the member of the calling of
justice to obey rules or morality and utility. Misconduct of advocates should thus be
understood in a context-specific, dynamic sense, which captures the role of the advocate in
the society at large.

7 | Page

Professional Ethics

The Body or Authority empowered to punish for Professional or Other

Misconduct
State Bar Council and its Disciplinary Committee
Section 35 : Punishment of Advocates for misconductInitiation and Procedure
1. Where on the receipt of the complaint or otherwise the State Bar Council has
reason to believe that any advocate on roll has been guilty of professional or
other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary
committee.
2. Where the case is referred to the disciplinary committee for inquiry and
disposal, the committee is required to fix a date for hearing the case and cause a
notice to be given to the advocate concerned and the Advocate General of the
state.
Powers
3. Section 35(3) provides that after giving the advocate concerned and the
Advocate
General an opportunity of being heard, the disciplinary committee of the state bar
council may make any of the following orders:
a) dismiss the complaint or where the proceedings were initiated at the
instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings be filed
b) reprimand the advocate
c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit
d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates
4. It is to be noted that where the advocate is suspended from practice under the
aforesaid clause (c), he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from
practicing in any court or before any authority or person in India.
Section 41: Alteration in the roll of advocatesWhere an order is made reprimanding or suspending an advocate, a record of the
punishment shall be entered against his name in the state roll and where an order is
made removing an advocate from practice, his name shall be struck off the state roll.
Section 36B: Disposal of disciplinary proceedingsThis section provides that the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council shall
dispose of the complaint received by it under section 35 expeditiously and in each
case the proceedings shall be concluded within a period of one year from the date of
the receipt of the complaint or the date of the initiation of the proceedings at the
instance of the State Bar Council, as the case may be, failing which such proceedings
shall stand to the BCI which may dispose of the same as if it were proceedings
withdrawn for inquiry under section 36(2).
Remedy against the order of punishment by the State Bar Council
Section 44: Review of order by disciplinary committeeThe disciplinary committee of Bar Council may of its own motion or otherwise review
any order, within 60 days of the date of the order passed by it.
8 | Page

Professional Ethics

However no such order of the review of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar
Council shall have effect, unless it has been approved by the Bar Council of India.
Section 37: Appeal to the Bar Council of India1. Any person aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of the State
Bar Council made Under Section 35 or the Advocate General of the State may
within 60 days of the date of the communication of the order to him, prefer an
appeal to the Bar Council of India.
2. Every such appeal shall be heard by the disciplinary committee of the BCI
which may pass such order including order varying the punishment awarded by
the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council as it deems fit.
3. No order of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council shall be varied
by the disciplinary committee of the BCI so as to prejudicially affect the person
aggrieved without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Bar Council of India and its Disciplinary Committee

Section 36: Disciplinary Powers of Bar Council of India1. Where on the receipt of the complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has
reason to believe that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll
has been guilty of profession or other misconduct , it shall refer the case for
disposal to its Disciplinary Committee.
2. Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may either on its own
motion or on a report by any State Bar Council or on an application made to it
by any person interested, withdraw for inquiry before itself any proceedings for
disciplinary action against any advocate pending before the disciplinary
committee of the State Bar Council and dispose of the same.
3. In disposing of the case, the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India
shall observe the procedure laid down in section 35, the reference to the
Advocate General in that section being construed as references to the Attorney
General of India.
4. Where any proceedings have been withdrawn for inquiry before the
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, the State Bar Council
concerned shall give effect to any such order. It also make it clear that in
disposing of any proceedings under this section, the disciplinary committee of
the Bar Council of India may make any order which the disciplinary committee
of a State Bar Council can make under subsection (3) of Section 35.
Remedy against the order of punishment by the Bar Council of India
Section 48AA: ReviewThe bar council of India or any of its committee, other than its disciplinary committee,
may on its own motion or otherwise, review any order, within 60 days of the date of
that order, passed by it under the Advocates Act.

9 | Page

Professional Ethics

Section 38: Appeal to the Supreme CourtAny person aggrieved by an order made by the disciplinary committee of the Bar
Council of India under Section 36 or Section 37 or the Attorney General of India or
the Advocate General of the state concerned, as the case may be , may within 60 days
of the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the
supreme court and the supreme court may pass such order including an order varying
the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the Bar council of India
thereon as it deems fit. However no order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar
council of India shall be varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the
person aggrieved without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Professional Misconduct vis-a-vis Contempt of Court
The ambit of contempt proceedings is much wider than proceedings for professional
misconduct as proceedings for professional misconduct can be carried out against the
advocate only whereas contempt proceedings can be initiated against members of bar
and bench both.
In case of contempt of court there is no fixed procedure for initiation or punishment
of the accused/guilty and whereas proceedings in case of professional misconduct are
to be carried out as per the Advocates Act 1966 which lays down a detailed procedure
for the same.
Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act are not applicable in case of
proceedings for contempt of court as these proceedings are carried on the basis of the
principles of Natural Justice, objectivity and fairness respectively.
In contempt of court proceedings cross examination is allowed in limited cases only.
For example in case of contempt proceedings against R.K Anand, Mr. R.K. Anand was
not allowed to cross examine Ponam Aggarwal who was in charge of the sting
operation. Whereas cross-examination is an important aspect of proceedings for
professional misconduct.
The punishment for contempt of court as envisaged in the Contempt of Court Act is
also different from the punishment for professional misconduct as envisaged under
Advocates Act, 1966.
It is to be noted that proceedings for contempt and professional misconduct can be
carried out simultaneously.
Case: Suo Motto Enquiry v. Nand Lal Balwani
Facts: The respondent advocate hurled the shoes and shouted slogans in the Supreme
Court of India.Both contempt and proceedings for professional misconduct were
initiated against him.
Held: The Supreme Court found him guilty for contempt of court and awarded him a
simple imprisonment for four months and fine of 2000 Rupees. Further the DC of BCI
also found him guilty of professional misconduct and ordered his name to be removed
from the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

10 | P a g e

Professional Ethics

Supreme Court of India and Its Powers

The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence judiciary is not the third pillar but the
central pillar of the democratic state. Misconduct: it is a sufficiently wide expression: it is not
necessary that it should involve moral turpitude. Any conduct which in any way renders a
man unfit for the exercise of his profession or is likely to hamper or embarrass the
administration of justice maybe considered to be misconduct calling for disciplinary action. It
cannot be said that an advocate can never be punished for professional misconduct committed
by him in his personal capacity.
In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra
In this case an advocate was found guilty of criminal contempt of Court and he was sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six years and suspended from practising as an
advocate for a period of three years. The punishment of imprisonment was suspended for a
period of four years and was to be activated in case of his conviction for any other offence of
contempt of Court within the said period. The Court held that the license of an advocate to
practice legal profession may be suspended or cancelled by the Supreme Court or High Court
in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction.
It was laid down that the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the contempt of High Court.
Being the Court of record the Supreme Court has the power to punish for the contempt of the
courts subordinate to it. Thus, the Supreme Court is fully competent to take cognizance of the
contempt of the High Courts or courts subordinate to it. It was also claimed that the Judge
before whom the contempt has been committed should be excluded. This claim was not
sustainable in the view of the Court. It observed further that its contempt jurisdiction under
Article 129 of the Constitution cannot be restricted or taken away by a statute, be it the
Advocates Act, 1961 or the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court has also observed that
the contempt jurisdiction of the superior Court's is not based on the statutory provisions but it
is inherent jurisdiction available to them on account of being a court of record. As regards the
procedure to be followed the Court has observed that the Courts of record can deal with
summarily with all types of contempt. With regards to Article 142 of the Constitution the
Court observed that the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court which are
supplementary in nature and are provided to do complete justice in any manner, are
independent of the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court under Article 129 which
cannot be trammeled in any manner by any statutory provision including any provisions of
the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Advocates Act, 1961 has nothing to do with the contempt jurisdiction of the Court, and
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 being a statute cannot denude the, restrict or limit the
powers of this Court to take action for contempt under Article 129.
The Supreme Court also held that it being appellate authority under Section 38 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 can impose punishment mentioned in Section 35 of the said Act. Thus,
the Supreme Court may suspend or cancel the license of an advocate to practice his
profession for contempt of Court. It finally said that the threat of immediate punishment is the
most effective deterrent against the misconduct. They emphasized that the time factor was
crucial and dragging the contempt proceedings means a lengthy interruption to the main
proceedings which paralyzed the Court for a long time. This case was overruled by Supreme
Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another.

11 | P a g e

Professional Ethics

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another.

Facts
In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, this Court found the Contemner, an advocate, guilty of
committing criminal contempt of Court for having interfered with and "obstructing the course
of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting,
disrespectful and threatening language". Aggrieved by the direction that the contemner shall
stand suspended from practising as an advocate for a period of three years issued by the
Supreme Court by invoking powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Indian Constitution,
the Supreme Court Bar Association, through its Honorary Secretary, filed a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking relief by way of issuing an appropriate writ,
direction, or declaration, declaring that the disciplinary committees of the Bar Councils set up
under the Advocates Act, 1961, alone have exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into and suspend
or debar an advocate from practising law for professional or other misconduct, arising out of
punishment imposed for contempt of court or otherwise and further declare that the Supreme
Court of India or any High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has no such original
jurisdiction, power or authority in that regard notwithstanding the contrary view held by this
Hon'ble Court in In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra.
Issue for Consideration
The petition was placed before a Constitutional Bench for passing the appropriate direction,
order or declaration. The bench identified a single question and had to decide upon was
whether the Supreme Court of India can while dealing with Contempt Proceedings exercise
power under Article 129 of the Constitution or under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution or under Article 142 of the Constitution can debar a practicing lawyer from
carrying on his profession as a lawyer for any period whatsoever.
The petitioner's assailed the correctness of the findings in In Re:
Vinay Mishra submitted that:
# although the powers conferred on this Court by Article 142, though very wide in their
aptitude, can be exercised only to "do complete justice in any case or cause pending before it
"and since the issue of 'professional misconduct' is not the subject matter of "any cause"
pending before this court while dealing with a case of contempt of court, it could not make
any order either under Article 142 or 129 to suspend the license of an advocate contemner, for
which punishment, statutory provisions otherwise exist.
# the Supreme Court can neither create a "jurisdiction" nor create a "punishment" not
otherwise permitted by law and that since the power to punish an advocate (for "professional
misconduct") by suspending his license vests exclusively in a statutory body constituted
under the Advocates Act, this Court cannot assume that jurisdiction under Article 142 or 129
or even under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.The bench came to the conclusion that
the Supreme Court under Article 129 and the High Court under Article 215 of the Indian
Constitution declaring them court of records has the power to punish the for contempt of
itself. The Court observed that Parliament is competent to make law in relation to Contempt
of Court. After analyzing Article 246 and entry 77 of List I of the VIIth Schedule and entry
14 of List III of the said schedule it is evident that the legislature can make a law regarding
the same, but cannot take away contempt jurisdiction from the Courts which flows from the
Courts being deemed as Courts of record which embodies the power to punish for the
contempt of itself.

12 | P a g e

Professional Ethics

With reference to Article 142 of the Constitution of India the Court observed that when this
court takes cognizance of a matter of contempt of Court by an advocate, there is no case,
cause or matter before it regarding his professional misconduct even though in a given case,
the contempt committed by an advocate may also amount to an abuse of the privilege granted
to an advocate by virtue of the license to practice law. No issue relating to his suspension
from practice is the subject matter of the case.
The Court opined that power to punish in matters of contempt of Court, though quite wide, is
yet limited and cannot be expanded to include the power to determine whether the advocate is
also guilty of professional misconduct in a summary manner giving a go by to the procedure
prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The power to do complete justice, in a way is a corrective power which gives preference to
equity over law but it cannot be used to deprive a professional lawyer of the due process of
law, contained in the Advocates Act, 1961, while dealing with a case of contempt of Court.
From a reading of Article 142 it is clear the statutory provisions cannot be ignored or taken
away or assumed by the Supreme Court. The Advocates Act, 1961, empowers the Bar
Council to take action against the advocate for professional misconduct. The Bar Council is
empowered under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to punish advocates for professional
misconduct. The act contains a detailed and complete mechanism for suspending or revoking
the license of an advocate. A disciplinary committee hears the case of the advocate concerned
and then order any of the punishments listed in Section 35(3) (ad). If the advocate is guilty of
contempt of Court as well as professional misconduct the Court must punish him for the
contempt, whereas refer the professional misconduct to the Bar. The Bar will then initiate
proceedings against, this provides the advocate with right to be heard and appropriate action
is taken by the disciplinary committee. After such proceedings if the advocate is aggrieved he
may approach the Supreme Court. Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides for an
appeal to the Supreme Court. This Section confers upon the Court appellate jurisdiction. If
once the matter has been reported to the Bar and it does not take any action, the Court may
take up the matter. This Section can in no way be construed to give original jurisdiction to the
Court.
The Court opined that the Supreme Court makes the statutory bodies and other organs of the
State perform their duties in accordance with law, its role is unexceptionable but it is not
permissible for the Supreme Court to take over the role of the bodies and other organs of the
State and perform their functions. There was an inherent fallacy in the case of Vinay Mishra,
it was said once the matter is before the court it can pass any order or direction. But the
matter is that of contempt of Court not of professional misconduct. The Court has jurisdiction
on the matter of contempt but professional misconduct vests with the Bar. As the Bar can
suspend an advocate only after giving him an opportunity to represent himself which is the
requirement of due process of law, after the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. The
Court in Vinay's case vested with itself with the jurisdiction that it never had.

13 | P a g e

Professional Ethics

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

www.scribd.com
www.wikipedia.com
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/sc_t.htm
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1621
www.google.com

14 | P a g e