Bar Council of India takes note of the Supreme Court Judgment in Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335 which held that Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 which debars a convicted person from being enrolled applies to an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council for a period of two years, if convicted for contempt.
Last week in my Article “Can a lawyer convicted and sentenced for Contempt of Court continue to practice? Supreme Court says No”, I have examined the legal position that stands as on today. I have also opined that the Supreme Court judgment requires to be re-considered .
I have concluded “In my humble opinion, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali, (2001) 8 SCC 650 and Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335 especially Pravin C Shah command absolute surrender of Advocates’ fraternity to Courts and strike at the very psyche of the Advocates. They need to be reviewed at the earliest, ofcourse with suitable modifications to safeguard the institution of judiciary from motivated, scurrilous and agenda ridden tirades.”
The Bar Council of India has now referred the matter to Bar Council of Delhi which has original jurisdiction over lawyers enrolled on its roll. The Bar Council has specifically taken note of the sentence and conviction imposed on Mr. Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court.
The issue as to whether the judgment applies to Prashant Bhushan’s case in which the Supreme Court invoked Article 129 of the Constitution of India also needs to be examined.
S.Basavaraj, Advocate & Member, Karnataka State Bar Council. raj@rajdakshalegal
Daksha Legal 