Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970: rr. 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D (as inserted by amendment in 2016) – Empowerment of High Court to debar an advocate from practicing – Validity of – Held: High Court Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 34 of Advocates Act – Section 34 does not confer power to frame rules to debar a lawyer for professional misconduct – It is apparent from the provisions and the scheme of the Advocates Act that the Act never intended to confer disciplinary powers upon the High Court or Supreme Court except to the extent dealing with an appeal u/s. 38 of Advocates Act – It is the Bar Councils of States and Bar Council of India which have the power to discipline the lawyers and maintain nobility of the profession under Advocates Act – The High Court has the power to debar the advocate under the Contempt of Courts Act – Even when the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council is not as effective as it should be, the very purpose of disciplinary control by Bar Council cannot be permitted to be frustrated – Such failure on the part of Bar Council can be supervised by the Court – Therefore, the impugned rules could not have been framed u/s. 34 of Advocates Act – The impugned rules clearly impinge upon the independence of the Bar – Exercise of disciplinary control by the High Court, by inserting the impugned rules would amount to usurpation of the power of Bar Council conferred under Advocates Act – Advocates Act, 1961 – s.34 – Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and 19.