Ration of Vinay Chandra Mishra case AIR 1995 SC 2348

INTRODUCTION
The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who
belong to are its honorable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had acquiring
merely the qualification of technical competence, the honor as a professional has to be maintained
by its members, by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court.

The object and need of the contempt jurisdiction or contempt of Court the Court has held that the
object of the contempt power is not to vindicate the dignity and honor of the individual Judge who
is personally attacked or scandalized, but to uphold the majesty of law and administration of
justice. The foundation of the Judiciary is the trust and confidence of the people in its ability to
deliver fearless and impartial justice.

The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence judiciary is not the third pillar but the central
pillar of the democratic state. Misconduct: it is a sufficiently wide expression: it is not necessary
that it should involve moral turpitude. Any conduct which in any way renders a man unfit for the
exercise of his profession or is likely to hamper or embarrass the administration of justice maybe
considered to be misconduct calling for disciplinary action. It cannot be said that an advocate can
never be punished for professional misconduct committed by him in his personal capacity.

FACTS OF THE CASE

M/s. Bansal Forgings Ltd. took loan from U.P. Financial Corporation and it made default in
payment of instalment of the same. Corporation proceeded against the Company Under Section 29
of the U.P. Financial Corporation Act. The company filed a Civil Suit against the Corporation and
it has also field an application for grant of temporary injunction. Counsel for the Corporation suo
moto put appearance in the matter before Trial Court and prayed for time for filing of reply. The
learned trial court passed an order on the said date that the Corporation will not seize the factory
of the Company. The company shall pay the amount of instalment and it will furnish also security
for the disputed amount. The court directed to furnish security on 31.1.94 and case was fixed on
15.3.94.

Chanakya National Law University 1|Page

 Ration of Vinay Chandra Mishra case AIR 1995 SC 2348

Against said order of the trial court this appeal has been filed and arguments have been advanced
that Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order for payment of installment of loan and further no
security could have been ordered.

Justice S.K. Keshote put a question to Shri Misra under which provision this order has been
passed. On putting of question he started to shout and said that no question could have been put to
him. He will get Justice S.K. Keshote transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought
against me in Parliament. He further said that he has turned up many Judges. He created a good
scene in the court. He asked Justice S.K. Keshote to follow the practice of this Court. In sum and
substance it is a matter where except to abuse Justice S.K. Keshote of mother and sister he insulted
me like anything. What he wanted to convey to him was that admission is as a course and no
arguments are heard, at this stage.

Justice S.K. Keshote submitted this matter to acting chief justice of Allahabad high court in writing
to bring this misshaping in the Court with the hope that he will do something for restoration of
dignity of Judiciary. The Acting Chief justice Shri V.K. Khanna forwarded the said letter to the
then Chief Justice of India by his letter of 5th April, 1994. The learned Chief Justice of India
constituted this Bench to hear the matter on 15th April, 1994.

Issue of the case

Judgement

Reasoning

Chanakya National Law University 2|Page

 Ration of Vinay Chandra Mishra case AIR 1995 SC 2348

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is vested with the right to punish those guilty of contempt of
Court under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The
power to punish contemners is also vested with the High Courts under Article 215
of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 also governs the
punishments given by the High Court. This act in no way controls the jurisdiction
of the Apex Court. The Court in In Re: Vinay Mishra misconstrued Article 129
read with 142 and robbed the Bar to of all powers to try and punish those for
professional misconduct. It even assumed jurisdiction when Section 38 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 explicitly provides only appellate jurisdiction to the Apex
Court. The Court punished Shri Mishra by suspending him thus the petition arose
in the 1998 case, Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India.

The Court overruled the Mishra case and recognized the Bar Council's power to try
and punish all those guilty of professional misconduct. It is well settled that
contempt proceedings are brought about to protect the majesty of law and uphold
the judiciary's position, the central pillar in Indian democracy, among the public
and give them reason to keep their faith in the administration of justice. Contempt
proceedings are not brought about to restore the pride of the Judge in who's Court
or against whose order their was contempt.

In the Mishra case the Court instead of protecting the image of the Judiciary, the
upholder of the law, knowingly or un-knowingly, tried to restore the pride of the
Judge by suspending the advocate Mishra who might have been influenced by his
high position in the Bar, and felt that appropriate punishment might not be meted
out to him.

In the Supreme Court Bar Association case the court took a very objective view
and taking the help of law and construing it in the right way came to the conclusion
that the power to punish for any professional misconduct rests with the Bar,
whereas to punish for contempt only it has jurisdiction for itself and subordinate

Chanakya National Law University 3|Page

 Ration of Vinay Chandra Mishra case AIR 1995 SC 2348

courts. No statute can take contempt jurisdiction away from the Supreme as well as
the High Court.

bibliography

Chanakya National Law University 4|Page