The Supreme Court has asked the law Commission to examine the provisions of the Advocates Act which allows a lawyer convicted of even the most heinous crimes is allowed to enroll as an advocate after a gap of two years from the date of expiry of his sentence.
Seeking a stricter legal framework to teach errant lawyers a lesson, the apex Bench of Justices Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh K Goel said, “legal profession being the most important component of justice delivery system, it must continue to perform its significant role and regulatory mechanism and should not be seen to be wanting in taking prompt action against any malpractice.”
Finding the regime of disciplinary action against lawyers to be wanting in many aspects, particularly when the State Bar Council and Bar Council of India fail to act against the black sheep within their fraternity, the Bench tasked the law Commission to study all aspects of this subject within a year. It asked the Centre to take serious consideration of the report by the Commission and file an affidavit on steps proposed to be undertaken within a month thereafter.
The decision of the Court came while dealing with a petition filed by a lawyer Mahipal Singh Rana who misbehaved with a district court judge of Etah district in Uttar Pradesh and was punished under Contempt of Courts Act. He was aggrieved by an order of the Allahabad High Court passed against him on December 2, 2005 which found his conduct of threatening and intimidating a judge in open court as amounting to interference in administration of justice and sentenced him to two months in prison.
Although the High Court requested the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to initiate disciplinary action against the said lawyer, no steps were taken. When the matter came in Supreme Court, the apex Bench sought the views of Solicitor General, Bar Council of India and Supreme Court Bar Association on the aspect whether a lawyer found guilty of committing contempt of court in these circumstances deserves to be barred from practice in court and his license suspended for a definite period.
Interestingly, despite the BCI being aware of the facts against the said lawyer, it failed to take any steps against him nor did it ensure the State bar council to implement the HC direction against the errant lawyer.
On consideration of the issue, the Bench found that Section 24A of Advocates Act bars enrollment of a lawyer who is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude but two years post his sentence, he becomes eligible to enter practice. The Bench failed to come to terms with this strange rule as to how the bar is “wiped out” against a lawyer convicted of heinous offences after enrollment.
Upholding the lawyer in question’s conviction the bench set aside his sentence considering he was 82 years, but barred him from appearance in courts. Further, applying Section 24A of Advocates Act, Court suspended his enrolment for two years and as a disciplinary measure, suspended his license for another five years.