Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India
Rule established
Article 142 confers a power of wide amplitude to do complete justice between parties, but it cannot be used to supplant substantive law or to ignore express statutory provisions dealing with the subject. The Court cannot exercise a jurisdiction which a statute vests exclusively in another authority.
Facts
- In a previous case the Supreme Court had found an advocate guilty of criminal contempt of court.
- In addition to punishing him for contempt, the Court had, in exercise of the power under Art.142, suspended him from practising as an advocate for a specified period.
- The Advocates Act, 1961 confers the power to reprimand, suspend or remove an advocate from the rolls on the Bar Council, acting through its disciplinary committee, with an appeal to the Bar Council of India and thereafter to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court Bar Association petitioned the Court, contending that the disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates belongs exclusively to the Bar Council and cannot be exercised by the Court under Art.142.
- It was accepted on all sides that the Court possesses power to punish for contempt under Art.129 and under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Issue
- Whether Art.142 enables the Supreme Court, while punishing an advocate for contempt, to suspend him from practice, a power that a statute vests in the Bar Council.
Held
- It does not. The Court held that Art.142 is meant to supplement the existing law and to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties before it; it is not a source of substantive power to do what the law otherwise forbids or entrusts to another body. The Court cannot, in exercise of Art.142, ignore express statutory provisions or build a new edifice where the legislature has already provided a complete scheme. Punishing for contempt is one thing, and the Court's power under Art.129 for that purpose is undoubted. Debarring an advocate from practice is a different matter altogether, being a question of professional misconduct which the Advocates Act, 1961 commits to the Bar Council with its own procedure and appeals. The proper course is to punish for contempt and to refer the question of professional misconduct to the Bar Council.
Ratio Decidendi
Article 142 operates within the constitutional and legal framework, not outside it. A power to do complete justice presupposes a legal framework in which justice is to be done, and if the Court could disregard statutes at will the provision would confer an unlimited legislative power on a judicial body. Where the legislature has created a specialised authority with a defined procedure for a defined subject, the exercise of that jurisdiction by another body would deny the affected person the safeguards the statute provides.
How to use it in an exam
- The standard authority on the limits of Art.142. State the formula: the power cannot supplant substantive law or ignore express statutory provisions.
- Pair it with Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India (1991), which emphasised the width of Art.142, so as to present both sides of the doctrine. The two together show a power that is wide in content but bounded by statute.
- Note the practical distinction the case turns on: contempt under Art.129 is within the Court's power, while professional discipline under the Advocates Act, 1961 is not.
- Use in problems where a court proposes a remedy not found in any statute. The test to apply is whether the order supplements the law or displaces it.
- Read with A R Antulay v R S Nayak (1988) on the proposition that Art.142 cannot be exercised in violation of express statutory provisions or fundamental rights.
- Remember that Art.142 has nevertheless been used creatively in areas where the law is silent, for example in matters of custody, environmental protection and the resolution of mass disasters, so the distinction is between silence and contradiction.
Source
Source: (1998) 4 SCC 409; AIR 1998 SC 1895; Constitution Bench of five Judges; the leading authority on the limits of Art.142; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.