In Brief
An advocate challenged the vires of High Court of Madras Rules 14-A to 14-D (amended 2016), which granted the High Court power to debar advocates for misconduct. The Supreme Court held that Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act empowers the High Court only to prescribe conditions of practice, not to exercise disciplinary control. Disciplinary power to suspend or remove advocates is exclusively vested in the Bar Councils. While courts may debar advocates from appearing upon finding contempt, they cannot conduct disciplinary proceedings. The judgment emphasizes that Bar independence is essential to rule of law and democracy. The Court struck down the rules as ultra vires and directed that the Contempt of Courts Act and Bar Council disciplinary mechanisms are the appropriate remedies for advocate misconduct.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.