Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala

Facts

• The High Court of Kerala had independently taken disciplinary action against an advocate for alleged professional misconduct.
• The High Court directed that the advocate's name be removed from the roll without reference to the Bar Council.
• BCI challenged this, arguing that disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates is exclusively vested in Bar Councils under the Advocates Act.

Issue

1. Whether the High Court can exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates independent of the Bar Council mechanism established under S.35-36B of the Advocates Act.

Held

• Post-Advocates Act, disciplinary jurisdiction vests exclusively in Bar Councils under S.35-36B. This is the statutory scheme for professional discipline.
• Courts cannot independently discipline advocates for professional misconduct. They cannot direct removal from the roll.
• Courts retain contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Art. 215 (HC) / Art. 129 (SC). This is a distinct power.
• The distinction is crucial: Contempt = offence against the court's authority. Professional misconduct = offence against professional standards. Different fora deal with different aspects.
• The High Court's order was set aside. The matter was directed to be referred to the Bar Council for appropriate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Advocates Act creates a complete machinery for professional discipline of advocates. This statutory scheme must be followed. Courts cannot bypass it merely because they are dissatisfied with an advocate's conduct. However, where conduct also amounts to contempt, the court's independent contempt power remains unaffected.