In Brief
An advocate challenged amended Rules 14A–14D of the Madras High Court (2016), which empowered courts to debar advocates from practice for misconduct such as bribery, record tampering, or disruption—without following Bar Council disciplinary procedures. The Supreme Court held these rules ultra vires Section 34 of the Advocates Act. While courts may regulate courtroom conduct and prevent contemners from appearing until they purge contempt, disciplinary power (suspending or revoking practice licenses) rests exclusively with Bar Councils. The Court emphasized that advocate independence is vital to democracy and rule of law. Though misconduct in the Madras High Court was grave, courts have adequate tools: contempt jurisdiction and referral to Bar Councils. Rules struck down; petition allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.