Constitution of India, 1950 :

Articles 142 and 129-Supreme Court's power of investigation for contempt of itself-Held: Such power is inherent and by virtue of Art. 142(2) is subject to law made by Parliament-But such law cannot take away the inherent jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Contempt of Courts Act does not deal with the powers of the Supreme Court to punish a contemner-Hence, Supreme Court exercises this power under Art. 129 r/w Art. 142-However, the nature of punishment prescribed under that Act may act as a guide for the Supreme Court--But the extent of punishment prescribed under that Act can apply only to High Court-S. 15 of the Act prescribes procedural mode for taking cognizance of criminal contempt but is not a substantive provision--Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S. 15.

Articles 129, 142 and 144-Punishment of an advocate for contempt of court-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Different from jurisdiction for punishment of an advocate for professional misconduct-Punishment for contempt of court is conferred on Supreme Court by Art. 129 r/w Art. 142- Punishment for professional misconduct is conferred exclusively on Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils under Advocates Act-While punishing an advocate for contempt of court, Supreme Court cannot suspend his licence to practice-Such a punishment can only be imposed by State Bar Councils-Supreme Court cannot impose it even under S. 38-Bar Council should "act in aid of the Supreme Court" while proceeding against an advocate for professional misconduct-But if Bar Council does not take any action Supreme Court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction under S. 38- Advocates Act, 1961, S. 38.

Article 142-Supreme Court-Plenary Power-Nature and scope of - Held: Supreme Court while making an order under Art. 142 cannot ignore substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject-It is a residuary power which is supplementarv and complementary to the powers conferred on Supreme Court by statutes to do complete justice between parties--It is meant to prevent any obstruct ion to the stream of justice.

Articles 129 and 215-Contempt of court-Jurisdiction of court-Held : Party, which brings the contumacious conduct to the notice of the court, is only an informant and not a litigant-It is not an adversarial litigation.

Articles 129 and 215--Contempt of court-Punishment for civil and criminal contempt-Nature and type of-Held: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 identifies nature or types of punishments in case of established contempt--It does not impinge upon the inherent powers of High Court under Art 215 either-However, no new type of punishment can be created or assumed.

Article 124-Supreme Court-Role of-Has always been a lawmaker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling.

Words and Phrase :

"Court of record"-Meaning of-In the context of Art. 129 of the Constitution of India, 19 5 0.

In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, [1995] 2 SCC 584, this Court found the contemner, 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." While awarding punishment this Court directed that the "contemner shall stand suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of three years" by invoking powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution". Being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction the petitioners filed the present petition before this Court.

The question before the Constitution Bench was : "Whether the punishment for established contempt of court committed by an Advocate can include punishment to debar the concerned advocate from practice by suspending his licence (Sanad) for a specified period, in exercise of the powers under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India".

On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that powers conferred on this Court by Article 142, though very wide in their amplitude, could be exercised only to "do complete justice in any case or cause pending before it" and since the issue of 'professional misconduct' was not the subject matter of "any cause" pending before this Court while dealing with a case of contempt of court, it could not make any order either under Article 142 or 129 to suspend the licence of an advocate contemner, for which punishment, statutory provisions otherwise exist; and that a court of record under Article 129 of the Constitution did not have any power to suspend the licence of a lawyer to practice because that was not a punishment which could be imposed under its jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court and that Article 142 of the Constitution could not also be pressed into aid to make an order which had the effect of assuming "jurisdiction" which expressly vested in another statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961.