R. Kaaruppan v. Dhanapalraj & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06-01-2005CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. RAJANWRIT APPEAL No.3983 OF 2004andWAMP.NOs.7485 & 7486 OF 2004R. KaaruppanNo.21, 2nd Street,Balaji Nagar,Royapettah,Chennai 600 014... Appellant/PetitionerVs.1. Dhanapalraj Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 104.2. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents /RespondentsAppeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order passed by Justice D. Murugesan inW.P.M.P.No.37436 of 2004 in W.P.No.30901 of 2004 dated18.11.2004.For Appellant: Mr.R. Kaaruppan Party-in-personFor Respondents : Mr.K. Venkatakrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N TP.K. MISRA, J.Appellant, an Advocate normally practising in the HighCourt of Madras, has filed the present appeal against the orderpassed by the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.37436 of 2004in W.P.No.30901 of 2004.2. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by theappellant calling in question the order dated 11.10.2004 issuedby the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the present Respondent No.2,whereunder the Bar Council prohibited the Appellant fromappearing in any Court until he was purged of the act ofcontempt. The appellant was further directed to surrender theoriginal Enrolment Certificate along with the Identity Card.The writ petition filed by the appellant is still pending fordecision on merit. Along with the writ petition, the appellantalso filed WPMP.No.37436 of 2004 praying for stay of theoperation of the order passed by the Bar Council dated11.10.2004. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition was consideredby the learned single Judge and by order dated 18.11.2004, thelearned single Judge passed an order of stay of the part of theimpugned order, where under the Bar Council had directed theappellant to surrender his original Enrolment Certificate andhis Identity Card. The appellant has however filed the presentappeal contending that the operation of the order of the BarCouncil in its entirety should have been stayed.3. The Appellant in person submitted that since in theappeal filed by him, the Supreme Court has granted bail to theappellant, it must be taken that the order of the High Courtpunishing the appellant for contempt is deemed to have beensuspended.4. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971provides for appeal from any order or decision of High Court inexercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Section 19(2) relates to power of the Appellate Court and it is extractedhere under :-“19(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Courtmay order that -(a) the execution of the punishment or orderappealed against be suspended; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he bereleased on bail; and(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that theappellant has not purged his contempt.” 5. Section 19(2) empowers the Appellate Court tosuspend the execution of the punishment as well as to suspendthe order appealed against. Under Section 19(2)(b), theAppellate Court is also entitled to release the appellant onbail, if he is in confinement. Punishment can be fine orimprisonment or both. In case the Appellate Court suspends theexecution of the punishment, the person convicted for contemptis not required to undergo punishment for the time being. Inother words, he need not pay the fine or need not undergo thesentence of imprisonment. Where, however, such convicted personmoves the Appellate Court, if he is in confinement, he can bereleased on bail by exercising power under Section 19(2)(b).However, the suspension of the execution of the punishment underSection 19(2)(a) or grant of bail under Section 19(2)(b) ipsofacto does not have the effect of suspending the “order appealedagainst”. In other words, it does not have the effect ofstaying the operation of the impugned order under which a personhas been found guilty of contempt. Where the “order appealedagainst” is suspended, there would be no order of conviction forthe time being till the appeal is decided. Where, only the“execution of the punishment” is suspended or the person isreleased on bail, such order does not amount to staying theoperation of the entire order appealed against. The effect isthat the person need not serve the sentence for the time being.There is fine distinction between the two powers. 6. The appellant also submitted that since an appealwas pending, the order of conviction was yet to become final,and therefore, till the appeal is decided on merit, Rule 14 ofthe Madras High Court Rules under the Advocates Act cannot beenforced. In our opinion, the aforesaid submission is notacceptable. Law is well settled that mere filing of appeal doesnot operate as stay of the order appealed against, unless thereis a specific provision of law to that effect. On the otherhand, the very fact that a provision has been made for stayingthe operation of the impugned order, in Section 19(2) of theContempt of Courts Act, clearly indicates that mere filing of anappeal would not operate as stay of the order appealed against.7. The appellant has further submitted that at anyrate the High Court having not chosen to take action, it wasnot for the Bar Council to take such action and therefore, theimpugned order so far as the Bar Council is concerned, wasuncalled for. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. This aspect has been considered by the learnedsingle Judge, who has opined that Rule 14 of the Madras HighCourt Rules, framed by the High Court under Section 34 of theAdvocates Act, 1961, would operate automatically and it is notnecessary to pass a formal order by any authority. We do notthink there is any scope for taking a different view on thisaspect. As a matter of fact, as rightly pointed out by thelearned single Judge, the decisions of the Supreme Courtreported in (2001) 8 SCC 650 (PRAVIN C. SHAH v. K.A. MOHD. ALIAND ANOTHER) and (2004) 6 SCC 311 (BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HIGHCOURT OF KERALA) are clear on this aspect. 9. The appellant has rather passionately submittedthat disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Court may takea long time and prohibiting the appellant from practising in anycourt of law for an uncertain or indefinite period would not bein the interest of justice. Unfortunately for the appellant,this is a piquant situation, but this will not come to the aidof the appellant, as by very operation of the Rules the right ofthe Advocate convicted for Contempt of Court becomes affected.It is for the appellant to move the Appellate Court forexpeditious disposal of the appeal.10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any scopefor interference with the discretionary order passed by thelearned single Judge while considering the question of stay.The appeal is therefore liable to be rejected. However, itwould be open to the appellant to move the learned single Judgefor early disposal of the writ petition. There would be noorder as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed.Sd/ Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrardpk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 104.2. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 104.1 cc to Mr. K. Venkatakrishnan, Advocate, SR. 10971 cc to Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate, SR. 1101 W.A.NO.3983 of 2004RA (CO)kk 7.1.05