"We request the Law Commission of India to go into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in consultation with all concerned at an early date.
"We hope the Government of India will consider taking further appropriate steps in the light of report 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," a three-judge bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave said.
The direction came in a verdict by which the apex court upheld the conviction of a Uttar Pradesh-based advocate for criminal contempt for intimidating and threatening a civil judge in Etah.
The bench upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court convicting advocate Mahipal Singh Rana of criminal contempt.
It also affirmed the direction of the High Court that Rana shall not be permitted to appear in courts in Etah district until he undergoes the punishment for the contempt.
the law governing the legal profession, said "there appears to be an urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanisms for the legal profession and other incidental issues, in consultation with all concerned."
The court also said, "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.
The instant case of professional misconduct against the lawyer had begun in 2003 when the Civil judge (Senior Division), Etah wrote two letters to the District judge, Etah and the Registrar General of Allahabad High Court alleging misconduct on part of the lawyer in the court room on April 16, 2003.
As per the letters, the advocate had appeared in the court of the Civil judge and started threatening and shouting at him for passing an adverse order against his relative.
The Allahabad High Court initiated contempt proceedings on the basis of the letters against Rana. After hearing the parties concerned, the High Court sentenced Rana to simple imprisonment of two months with a fine of Rs 2,000.
Rana had moved the apex court against the judgement of the High Court.
While upholding the conviction of the lawyer, the court said, "the 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.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
