Summary
False allegations of manipulative listing were made by an Advocate-on-Record despite an existing judicial direction listing the case before the same regular Bench. The Court found an attempt to secure a different Bench. Considering the later apology, it declined further contempt action beyond caution, but suspended his permission to practise as an Advocate-on-Record for one month under the Supreme Court Rules.
Issues
- Whether the allegations and conduct warranted consequences despite an unconditional apology.
- Whether misconduct justified temporary withdrawal of Advocate-on-Record privileges.
Provisions considered
- Order IV Rule 10, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The reproduced rule authorised removal from the Advocate-on-Record register permanently or for a specified period for misconduct or unbecoming conduct. The Court applied it to restrict that privilege for one month. (¶ 30–32)
- Part VI, Chapter II, Section I, duty 4, Bar Council of India RulesThe reproduced professional duty required independent judgment and restraint of a client’s improper practices, rather than acting as a mere mouthpiece. (¶ 22–24)
Held
- The listing followed a judicial direction and involved the same regular Bench. The allegations against the Registry were false; the Court found deliberate assistance to the litigant’s attempt to shift the Bench. (¶¶ 4–8, 14–15, 29)
- Client representation did not excuse breach of the advocate’s paramount duties to the court and justice. The later apology and Bar representations supported leniency, but not absence of consequences. (¶ 16–28)
- Further contempt action was not pursued beyond a caution. Separately, under the Court’s rules, the advocate could not practise as an Advocate-on-Record for one month; the order distinguished that privilege from general enrolment as an advocate. (¶ 28–32)
Result
Contempt petition disposed of with caution and a one-month prohibition on practice as an Advocate-on-Record from the order date.