IN RE: VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER) versus IN RE : VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER)

IN RE: VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER) versus IN RE : VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER)

The Supreme Court holds that its power under Article 129 to punish for contempt extends to all courts under its supervisory jurisdiction and is sui generis, not restricted by statutes such as the Contempt of Courts Act or Advocates Act. The court may suspend an advocate’s license as punishment for contempt, as the contempt and disciplinary jurisdictions coexist. The conviction for contempt was based on the findings that the contemner threatened, insulted, and disrespected the Judge, thereby obstructing the administration of justice.

Parties
Alleged Contemner: Vinay Chandra Mishra; Complainant/judge: Justice S.K. Keshote
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Contemner found guilty of criminal contempt; sentence of six weeks’ simple imprisonment suspended for four years; suspension from practice as advocate for three years; vacation of all posts/offices held as advocate ordered; petition disposed of.
Legal Topics
Supreme Court's Contempt Powers, Scope of Article 129 and 142, Suspension and Punishment of Advocates, Procedure for Criminal Contempt, Relationship Between Contempt of Court and Professional Misconduct
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Legal Profession Supreme Court's Contempt Powers Scope of Article 129 and 142 Suspension and Punishment of Advocates Procedure for Criminal Contempt Relationship Between Contempt of Court and Professional Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinay Chandra Mishra

Alleged Contemner

Justice S.K. Keshote

Complainant/judge

Procedural Posture

Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Supreme Court can take cognizance and punish for contempt of High Court under Article 129
  2. 2 Whether Supreme Court may suspend the licence of an advocate as punishment for contempt
  3. 3 Whether power under Articles 129 and 142 is restricted by Contempt of Courts Act 1971 or Advocates Act 1961

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court holds that its power under Article 129 to punish for contempt extends to all courts under its supervisory jurisdiction and is sui generis, not restricted by statutes such as the Contempt of Courts Act or Advocates Act. The court may suspend an advocate’s license as punishment for contempt, as the contempt and disciplinary jurisdictions coexist. The conviction for contempt was based on the findings that the contemner threatened, insulted, and disrespected the Judge, thereby obstructing the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Contemner found guilty of criminal contempt; sentence of six weeks’ simple imprisonment suspended for four years; suspension from practice as advocate for three years; vacation of all posts/offices held as advocate ordered; petition disposed of.

Orders

  • Six weeks simple imprisonment suspended for four years, to be activated if convicted of contempt again.
  • Suspension from practice as advocate for three years from date of judgment.