In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra v.

Unknown AIR 1995 SC 2348

FACTS

Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra, the then President of the Bar Council of India, was accused of
abusing a judge of the Allahabad High Court. The said incident occurred while the Court was in
session and the applicant Judge was in the process of hearing a case in which the contemnor
was appearing on behalf of one of the parties. According to the applicant judge [Justice SK
Keshote], the contemnor had started shouting in reply to a question and had threatened that he
would get the judge transferred and even impeached. The judge further complained that the
contemnor had insulted him in open Court. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court of
India for decision.

ISSUES

1.Whether the act of the advocate amounts to contempt?

Yes

2.Whether the punishment given to advocate is valid?

Yes

LEGAL PROVISION

Section 16 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Rule Rule Contempt by Judge, Magistrate or
person acting judicially

ARGUMENTS

Before the Supreme Court, the following was argued by the Contemnor;
That the applicant judge had treated him unfairly and had proceeded to set aside an order of the
lower court without even hearing the arguments.
That he was being ‘roughed’ up by the judge for taking a fearless stand to protect the freedom
of the Bar.
That an investigation must be ordered into the incident to find out whether contempt had been
committed punishable under Article 215 of the Constitution or under Section 16 of the Contempt
of Courts Act.
That his conduct did not amount to contempt as normally altercations take place between a
Judge and the arguing advocate, which may technically be contempt on either side but there
being no intention, provisions of contempt were not attracted.
That the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to punish for an act of contempt committed
in respect of another Court of Record which was invested with identical and independent power
for punishing for contempt of itself.

JUDGEMENT

In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the contemner is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six weeks. However, in the circumstances of the case, the di de
sentence will remain suspended for a period of four years and may be activated in case the
contemner is convicted for any other offence of contempt of court within the said period, (11.2)
The contemner shall stand suspended from practicing as an advocate for a period of three
years from today with the bombiem consequence that all elective and nominated offices or posts
at presents held by him in his capacity as an advocate, shall stand vacated by him forthwith.