Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition effectively seeking a second review of the senior-advocate designation judgment and rejected the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act. It found the appearing advocate’s conduct contemptuous in the face of the Court and issued notice on punishment, without imposing a sentence in this order.
Issues
- Whether Article 32 could be used to reopen the Court’s senior-designation judgment after review.
- Whether the advocate’s courtroom conduct amounted to contempt and what procedural order should follow.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(2), Advocates Act, 1961The Court rejected the constitutional challenge and emphasized that senior designation is neither a bounty nor an entitlement as of right. (¶ 15)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaA writ petition does not lie against the Supreme Court’s judgment; this petition in substance attempted a second review. (¶¶ 3, 15–16)
- Order XLVII Rule 5, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The Court noted the prohibition of a second review and rejected its attempted pursuit in writ form. (¶¶ 3, 15)
- Articles 129 and 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court relied on the constitutional contempt powers and precedents allowing summary action in exceptional instances of contempt in its presence. (¶ 9–13)
- Section 14, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971The cited precedents explained that the ordinary notice-and-hearing procedure does not rule out exceptional summary action for deliberate contempt witnessed in court; here notice on punishment was nevertheless issued. (¶ 10–13)
Held
- The advocate’s irrelevant remarks aimed at browbeating the Court and assertions of lawyers’ immunity obstructed the administration of justice and constituted contempt in its presence. The Court reviewed earlier recorded conduct as context. (¶ 1–9)
- Exceptional contempt in the Court’s presence can warrant immediate action. Although the Court considered punishment available at once, it issued notice on the punishment to be imposed, returnable within two weeks. (¶ 9–13)
- A writ could not serve as a second review of the senior-designation judgment. Section 16(2) was not unconstitutional, and senior designation could not be demanded as a right or bestowed as bounty. (¶ 15–16)
Result
Writ petition dismissed. Notice issued to the advocate on punishment for contempt, returnable within two weeks; no sentence imposed in this order. Judgment to be circulated to all High Court Chief Justices and the Bar Councils of India and Kerala within four weeks.