LL.B.

VI Term Supplementary Examination, OBE-2, September 2021

Subject: Professional Ethics and Accounting System
Paper Code: LB-601 (NC)

TIME: 3 HOURS MAXIMUM MARKS: 80

Instructions:
 All questions carry equal marks (20 marks)
 This question paper contains total 6 questions.
 Attempt any 4 questions out of 6 questions.
 Answers may be written either in English or in Hindi but the same medium should be
used throughout the paper.

Q1. The petitioner ‘Safe Planet’ is an NGO working for the betterment of environment is
concerned about the adverse environmental impact and tragic consequences of Government’s
notice to cut down nearly 5000 trees for the construction of National Highway Delhi-Jaipur. It
filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against it. During the pendency of writ
petition Supreme Court passed various orders. One such order was permitting cutting down 200
trees coming the way. It was resented and protested by the writ petitioners outside the main gate
of Supreme Court premises by raising placards and slogans ascribing lack of integrity and
dishonesty to the institution. Mr. Ashok, an Advocate by profession filed a Contempt petition
against the respondents named therein. The court initiated the contempt proceedings by issuing
notice. Respondent No. 1, in his reply affidavit accused courts of harassing him to settle the
personal vendetta against him. He also urged that as no actual damage has been done to the
judiciary, the proceedings be dropped. Discuss whether it is actually Contempt of Court keeping
in mind the concept of bonafide criticism of any system including judiciary with the help of
decided cases.

Q2. In Session trial No. 455 of 2020, the bail petition of accused Ram Singh was taken up under
section 439 Cr. P. C. The bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. At evening nearly 7 PM,
six relatives of Ram Singh including his son, armed with deadly weapons barged into the house
of presiding officer and assaulted him by overpowering him. On the next, day District and
Session Judge enquired into the matter and submitted his report before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana. All the appellants who were convicted for contempt raised two common points
challenging the impugned judgment that, (i) the High Court cannot take suo moto notice of the
contempt of a court subordinate to it, and, (ii) the allegations made constitute an offence under
section 228 IPC and therefore, jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognizance is expressly
barred under proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of courts Act. Examine the proposition with
the help of decided cases.

Page 1 of 2
Q3. The appellant before Supreme Court Mr. B. Mishra, (former Member of Parliament from
Uttar Pradesh) during a press conference said that, “Judiciary is a part of the class rule of the
ruling classes and there are limits to the sanctity of the judiciary. The Judiciary is weighed
against the workers and peasants and the system of judiciary essentially serves the exploiting
class.” The report of the press conference was published the following day in some local
newspapers. The proceedings of contempt were commenced in the High Court of Allahabad on
the sworn information of an advocate of the High Court. Mr. Mishra was convicted and
sentenced of Rs. 500/- fine and simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order of
the High Court, Mr. Mishra is contemplating to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In the light of relevant legal provisions and decided cases, frame your arguments before the
Supreme Court with respect to freedom of speech and expression vis-a-vis power to punish for
contempt of court.

Q4. On receipt of a complaint against appellant Mr. Vishnu Kumar, as advocate, the State Bar
Council having ‘reason to believe’ that advocate on its roll was guilty of “negligence simpliciter”
treating it as “profession misconduct” initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. No charge
was framed specifying the nature and content of the professional misconduct nor were any issues
framed or points for determination formulated. As the case could not be concluded within the
prescribed time limit the matter came to be transferred to the Bar Council of India which heard
the arguments and by its impugned order suspended him from practice for a period of four years
which is under appeal.

Discuss the relevant provisions and principles which must be followed by the disciplinary
committee in a proceeding against a member of legal profession under the Advocates Act.

Q5. Judges are not to be judged by the Bar. The pressure tactics by the Bar through
unconstitutional methods requires to be nipped in the bud.

The above observations were made by Supreme Court while dealing a Public Interest Litigation
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Mr. Venkat Ramu, a practising advocate seeking an
appropriate writ or direction restraining permanently the Bar Association coercing Justice ‘X’ to
resign from the office as Judge for his alleged misbehaviour.

In the light of relevant legal provisions and decided cases, discuss the nature of the act of the Bar
Association and whether it amounts to interference in the independence of judiciary.

Q6. “An advocate after being enrolled could take up part-time law teaching but full-time law
teachers are not entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate.”

Discuss the above statement in the light of relevant legal provisions and decided cases.

Page 2 of 2