In Brief
The petitioner, an advocate, challenged amendments to the Madras High Court Rules that empowered courts to debar advocates from practice for specified misconduct without a disciplinary hearing by the Bar Council. The Supreme Court held that while courts can regulate courtroom conduct and debar advocates for contempt, the power to suspend or remove advocates from practice for professional misconduct rests exclusively with Bar Councils under the Advocates Act. The Court struck down the rules as ultra vires Section 34, which authorizes only procedural and operational conditions of practice, not disciplinary control. The judgment affirmed that Bar independence in disciplinary matters is constitutionally essential to the rule of law and democracy. Courts retain robust contempt powers and can urge Bar Councils to act, but cannot usurp their statutory role, even in grave circumstances.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.