Poojan Modi
19BBL040
Section C
1. Facts of the present situation in a video:
In the present video, a man who’s an advocate is seen on record as being in a heated
argument with a policeman, after walking away initially, he returns and again starts arguing
with the Policeman. After arguing for a minute or so, the advocate takes aggressive steps
towards the policeman while a policewoman tries to be a buffer between them. When it is
seemed that the matter is sorted and everyone is walking away, the advocate slaps the
policeman from behind. It is pertinent to note that the other police officers took no counter
actions against the advocate.
2. Identify the nature of offence/misconduct/contempt etc. committed by
Advocate.
Following the action by the lawyer, he’s committed the following offences:
i. Professional Misconduct Under “The Advocates Act, 1961”.
ii. The Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code on Voluntarily causing hurt to deter
public servant from his duty.
iii. The Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code on Assault or criminal force to deter
public servant from discharge of his duty.
3. Identify the authority to which the aggrieved person will approach.
The aggrieved person should approach the court for acts which violate the Indian penal code
(IPC) while in the case of Professional misconduct, the State Bar Council concerned shall
hold a disciplinary committee to take necessary actions.
4. Arguments Advanced
In the present scenario, the advocate is violating the following laws due to which the
appellant has been physically harmed.
I. Professional Misconduct Under the Advocates Act, 1961. The term
‘Professional Misconduct’ in the simple sense means improper conduct. In
legal sense it means an act done wilfully with a wrong intention by the
people engaged in the profession. It means any activity or behaviour of an
advocate in violation of professional ethics for his selfish ends. If an act
results in dispute to his profession and make him unfit of being in the
profession, it amounts to ‘Professional Misconduct’. In other words, an act
which disqualifies an advocate to continue in legal profession.
II. The Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code states about Voluntarily
causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.—Whoever voluntarily
causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his
duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or
any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant,
or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person
in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
III. The Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code is on Assault or criminal force
to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of
his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that
person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence
of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful
discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either explanation for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
Case Laws:
Noratanmal Chaurasia V/s M.R. Murli:
In this case The Supreme court says that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates
Act, 1966 but misconduct envisions breach of discipline. An advocate assaulted and kicked
the complainant and asked him to refrain from proceeding with the case. The Supreme Court
held that a lawyer is obliged to observe the norms of behaviour anticipated for him and his
behaviour was unfit for an advocate.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another:
In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, this Court found the Contemnor, an advocate, guilty of
committing criminal contempt of Court for having interfered with and "obstructing the course
of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting,
disrespectful and threatening language".
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
condemners 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.
