Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
41. Inspite of the above observations no action appears to have been taken at any level. The result is that a person convicted of even a most heinous offence is eligible to be enrolled as an advocate after expiry of two years from expiry of his sentence. This aspect needs urgent attention of all concerned.
42. Apart from the above, we do not find any reason to hold that the bar applicable at the entry level is wiped out after the enrollment. Having regard to the object of the provision, the said bar certainly operates post enrollment also. However, till a suitable amendment is made, the bar is operative only for two years in terms of the statutory provision.
43. In these circumstances, Section 24A which debars a convicted person from being enrolled applies to an advocate on the rolls of the Bar · Counci 1 for a period of two years, if convicted for contempt. c c
44. In addition to the said disqualification, in view judgment of this Court in R.K. Anand (supra), unless a person purges himself of contempt or is permitted by the Court, conviction results in debarring an advocate from appearing in court even in absence of suspension or termination of the licence to practice. We therefore, uphold the directions of the High Court in para 42 of the impugned order quoted above to the effect that the appellant shall not be permitted to appear in courts of District Etah until he purges himself of contempt. Inaction of the Bar Councils – Nature of directions required
45. We may now come to the direction to be issued to the Bar Council ofUttar Pradesh or to the Bar Council of India. In the present case, in spite of direction of the High Court as long back as more than ten years, no action is shown to have been taken by the Bar Council. Notice was issued by this Court to the Bar Council of India on 271h January, 2006 and after all the facts having been brought to the notice of the Bar Council oflndia, the said Bar Council has also failed to take any action. In view of such failure of the statutory obligation of the Bar Council of the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the Bar Council of India, this Court has to exercise appellate jurisdiction under the Advocates Act in view of proved misconduct calling for disciplinary action. As already observed, in SCBA case (supra), this Court observed that where the Bar Council fails to take action inspite ofreference made to it, this Court can exercise suo motu powers for punishing the contemnor for professional misconduct. The appellant has already been given sufficient opportunity in this regard.
46. We may add that what is permissible for this Court by virtue of statutory appellate power under Section 3 8 of the Advocates Act is also permissible to a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases on failure of the Bar Council to take action after its attention is invited to the misconduct.
47. Thus, apart from upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court to the appellant, exc,ept for the imprisonment, the appellant will suffer automatic consequence of his conviction under Section 24A of the Advocates Act which is applicable at the post enrollment stage also as already observed.
48. Further, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, we direct that the licence of the appellant will MAHlPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ANlL R. DAVE, J.] stand suspended for a further period of five years. He will also remain debarred from appearing in any court in District Etah even after five years unless he purges himself of contempt in the manner laid down by this Court in Bar Council of India (supra) and R.K Anand (supra) and as directed by the High Court. Question (ii) stands decided accordingly.
49. We thus, conclude: (i) Conviction of the appellant is justified and is upheld; (ii) Sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is set aside in view of his advanced age but sentence of fine and default sentence are upheld. Further direction that the appellant shall not be permitted to appear in courts in District Etah until he purges himself of contempt is also upheld; (iii) Under Section 24A of the Advocates Act, the enrollment of the appellant will stand suspended for two years from the date of this order; (iv) As a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct, the licence of the appellant will remain suspended for further five years. An Epilogue
50. While this appeal will stand disposed of in the manner indicated above, we do feel it necessary to say something further in continuation of repeated observations earlier made by this Court referred to above. 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. We have noticed the inaction of the Bar Council ofUttar Pradesh as well as the Bar Council of India inspite of direction in the impugned order of the High Court and inspite of notice to the Bar Council oflndia by this Court. We have also noticed the failure of all concerned to advert to the observations made by the Gujarat High Court 33 years ago. Thus there appears to be urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanism for the legal profession and other incidental issues, in consultation with all concerned.
51. In a recent judgment of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre versus State of M.P. in Civil Appeal No.4060 of c 2009 dated 2"d May, 2016, while directing review of regulatory mechanism for the medical profession, this court observed that there is need to review of the regulatory mechanism of the other professions as well. The relevant observations are: .. There is perhaps urgent need to review the regulatory mechanism for other service oriented professions also. We do hope this issue will receive attention of concerned authorities, including the Law Commission. in due course . ..
52. In view of above, we request the Law Commission oflndia to go into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in c consultation with all concerned at an early date. We hope the Government oflndia will consider taking further appropriate steps in the light ofreport of the Law Commission within six months thereafter. The Central Government may file an appropriate affidavit in this regard within one month after expiry of one year.
53. To consider any further direction in the light of developments that may take place, put up the matter for further consideration one month after expiry of the period of one year. Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of.