Professional ethicsContemptSupreme Court of India

Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra

(1995) 2 SCC 584; AIR 1995 SC 2348; [1995] 2 SCR 63819952 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
On 9 Mar 1994 the advocate, a senior member of the Bar who was then Chairman of the Bar Council of India, shouted at and threatened Justice S.K. Keshote of the Allahabad High Court in open court when questioned about a case.
Issue
Whether the conduct was criminal contempt.
Held
He was guilty of criminal contempt for trying to "threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language".
Principle
An advocate who threatens and insults a judge in court commits criminal contempt. The further holding that the Supreme Court could suspend his licence under Art. 129 and 142 was overruled in Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India (1998).
Cite this

Facts

  • On 9 Mar 1994 the advocate, a senior member of the Bar who was then Chairman of the Bar Council of India, shouted at and threatened Justice S.K. Keshote of the Allahabad High Court in open court when questioned about a case.
  • The judge reported the incident to the Acting Chief Justice, and the matter came to the Supreme Court as a contempt proceeding.

Issues

  1. Whether the conduct was criminal contempt.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court could, as part of the punishment, suspend him from practice.

Held

  • He was guilty of criminal contempt for trying to "threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language".
  • Using Art. 129 read with Art. 142, the Court imposed six weeks' simple imprisonment, suspended for four years, and suspended him from practice for three years, vacating all elective and nominated offices he held as an advocate.
  • Overruled in part: in SCBA v Union of India (1998) the Constitution Bench held that suspension of a licence is for the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, not a punishment for contempt. To that extent Vinay Chandra Mishra "is not good law".

Ratio decidendi

An advocate who intimidates a judge commits criminal contempt. Courts may punish the contempt and may refuse audience until it is purged, but licence suspension belongs to the Bar Council's disciplinary jurisdiction (SCBA, 1998).

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A (6 marks): Cite for criminal contempt by an advocate, and note at once that the suspension part was overruled by SCBA (1998).
  • Part B (16 marks): Use as the starting point of the contempt and suspension story: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995), overruled by SCBA (1998), then Pravin C. Shah (2001), BCI v High Court of Kerala (2004) and Mahipal Singh Rana (2016). The correct present law is: courts punish contempt and control audience; Bar Councils suspend or remove.
  • Key line for exam: "To that extent, the law laid down in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra is not good law" (SCBA, 1998).

Cite this

Citation

Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584; AIR 1995 SC 2348; [1995] 2 SCR 638

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/761887/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.