CONDUCT IN COURT

AND PROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT IN GENERAL
Key Principles of Conduct in Court
• 1. Respect for the Court
• Advocates must show proper respect to the judiciary
and the court as an institution.
• This includes addressing judges appropriately, standing
when speaking, and following courtroom protocols.
• 2. Decorum and Demeanor
• Maintain a polite and professional demeanor in the
courtroom.
• Avoid loud, aggressive, or disrespectful behavior.
• 3. Truthfulness and Honesty
• Advocates must present facts honestly and should not
knowingly mislead the court.
• Avoid submitting false evidence or making frivolous arguments.
• 4. Punctuality and Preparedness
• Be present on time for hearings and ensure all necessary
documents and arguments are ready.
• 5. Non-Disruption
• Avoid causing disruptions, such as speaking out of turn or
interrupting the judge or opposing counsel.
• 6. Professional Attire
• Follow the prescribed dress code (e.g., black
coat, white shirt, and black tie or band).
• 7. Respect for Opponents
• Treat opposing counsel and parties with courtesy
and fairness.
• Refrain from personal attacks or unprofessional
remarks.
• 8. Confidentiality
• Safeguard client information and ensure it
is not disclosed improperly.
• 9. Avoidance of Contempt
• Avoid any behavior, statements, or
gestures that could be construed as
contempt of court.
Specific Duties to the Court (As
per Bar Council of India Rules)
• Act in a Dignified Manner
• Advocates must conduct themselves with dignity and self-respect.
• They must also help maintain the dignity of the court.
• 2. Do Not Influence Decisions
• Avoid attempting to influence judges through personal relationships or
improper means.
• 3. Present Legal Arguments Faithfully
• Focus on presenting sound legal arguments rather than attempting to
deceive or mislead.
• 4. Refuse Illegal or Immoral Instructions
• Decline to act upon instructions from clients that are illegal or unethical.
In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995)
2 SCC 584
• Vinay Chandra Mishra, an advocate, was
charged with criminal contempt of court
for his behavior during a court proceeding.
Mishra used abusive and threatening
language against a judge while the judge was
performing his judicial duties. His conduct
was deemed derogatory and disrespectful,
undermining the dignity of the judiciary and
obstructing the administration of justice.
Issues Before the Court:

• Whether the conduct of Vinay Chandra

Mishra amounted to criminal contempt of
court under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
• Whether the Supreme Court had the power
to punish an advocate for misconduct and
temporarily suspend their right to practice.
• The Supreme Court found Vinay Chandra Mishra guilty of
criminal contempt and passed the following orders:
1.Punishment for Contempt:
1. Mishra was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months.
2. He was also barred from practicing as an advocate for a period of
three years.
2.The Court emphasized that such behavior from an advocate
cannot be tolerated, as it undermines public confidence in the
judiciary.
3.The Court exercised its inherent power under Article 129
(Supreme Court as a court of record) and Article 142 (power
to do complete justice) of the Constitution of India.
D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra
(2001) 2 SCC 221
• In this case, the appellant, D.P. Chadha, an advocate,
filed a suit against Triyugi Narain Mishra, another
advocate, for allegedly filing a frivolous complaint with
the Bar Council against him. The complaint accused
Chadha of misconduct and unethical behavior, which the
Bar Council eventually dismissed. Chadha claimed that
Mishra's complaint was false and made with the intention
of maligning his reputation and obstructing his practice.
• Chadha sought damages for the harm caused by the
filing of the complaint, alleging that Mishra's actions had
harmed his professional reputation.
Issues Before the Court:

1.Whether the filing of a frivolous and false

complaint by an advocate against another
advocate amounts to professional misconduct.
2.Whether an advocate can seek damages for
harm caused by such complaints, which are filed
with malicious intent.
3.What constitutes "misconduct" by an advocate
in the context of filing complaints to the Bar
Council.
The Supreme Court held that:

1.Frivolous Complaints: Advocates have a duty to act ethically and with

integrity in their professional dealings. Filing a frivolous and false
complaint with the intent to harm the reputation of another advocate
amounts to misconduct. The Court emphasized that such actions go
against the ethical obligations of an advocate to uphold the dignity of the
profession and the judiciary.
2.Damages for Malicious Complaints: The Court recognized that filing
baseless complaints can cause damage to the professional standing of an
advocate, and such damage may justify a claim for compensatory
damages. However, the Court did not award damages in this particular
case but provided a warning against such conduct.
3.Duty to Avoid Malicious Acts: The Court reiterated the need for
advocates to avoid engaging in any conduct that undermines the integrity
of the profession, including filing complaints without proper cause.
R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad
Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264
R.D. Saxena, an advocate, was engaged by Balram
Prasad Sharma, a bank officer, to handle a case. During
the pendency of the proceedings, the advocate
terminated his engagement due to some differences. The
client requested the return of his case files, which were in
the advocate’s custody. Saxena refused to return the files
unless the client paid his professional fees and expenses.
The client alleged that the advocate was withholding the
files arbitrarily, thereby causing him hardship in
continuing with his case.
Issues Before the Court:

• Does an advocate have the right to

retain a client’s case files as security
for unpaid fees (a form of "lien")?
• What are the ethical duties of an
advocate when terminating an
engagement with a client?
The Supreme Court held that:

1.No Right to Retain Files:

1. An advocate does not have a right of lien over the case files or
documents of a client for unpaid professional fees.
2. Once the advocate’s engagement is terminated, they are under a
professional obligation to return the documents to the client promptly.
3. Advocates are considered professionals, not traders, and their primary
duty is to uphold justice and assist their clients in every possible legal
way.
2.Duty of an Advocate:
1. Advocates are officers of the court and have ethical duties that
transcend their financial interests.
2. Withholding a client’s documents, especially when it obstructs the
client’s legal proceedings, is unprofessional and against the principles of
justice.
4. No Justification for Retention:
1. The Court emphasized that professional conduct and
ethics demand that an advocate cannot use the client’s
case files as leverage to demand payment.
2. If there is a dispute regarding fees, the advocate must
seek remedies through appropriate legal channels rather
than withholding documents.
5. Bar Council's Role:
3. The Court noted that professional misconduct, such as
withholding documents arbitrarily, could attract
disciplinary action by the Bar Council.
Supreme Court Bar Association v.
Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409
This case arose after the Supreme Court had punished
an advocate, Vinay Chandra Mishra, for criminal
contempt of court in In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra
(1995) 2 SCC 584. In that case, the Supreme Court
imposed a sentence of two months imprisonment
and also suspended his license to practice as an
advocate for three years. The judgment in Mishra’s
case was challenged, as it raised the issue of whether
the Supreme Court had the power to suspend or
revoke an advocate’s license, which is regulated under
the Advocates Act, 1961.
Issues Before the Court:
• Does the Supreme Court have the authority to
suspend or revoke an advocate’s license to
practice as a punishment for contempt of court?
• What is the scope of the Supreme Court's powers
under Article 129 (Contempt of Court) and
Article 142 (Power to do complete justice) of
the Indian Constitution?
• What is the role of the Bar Council of India
(BCI) in disciplining advocates?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision,
clarifying the boundaries of its powers and the role of
the Bar Council in disciplinary matters. The key
findings were:
1.Power to Punish for Contempt:
1. The Supreme Court, as a court of record, has inherent
powers under Article 129 to punish for contempt of
court, including imprisonment and fines.
2. However, the Court cannot exercise disciplinary powers
over advocates, such as suspending or revoking their right
to practice.
2. Role of the Bar Council:
1. The Advocates Act, 1961, provides the Bar Council of India (BCI)
and State Bar Councils the exclusive authority to regulate and
discipline advocates, including suspending or revoking their license.
2. Any punishment affecting the professional rights of an advocate must
be determined through the procedures established under the Act.
3. Limitations of Article 142:
3. While Article 142 grants the Supreme Court wide powers to "do
complete justice," this power cannot be used to override statutory
provisions or infringe upon the jurisdiction of other bodies (e.g., the Bar
Council).
4. Suspending an advocate’s license falls outside the Supreme Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 142, as the power is vested solely in the Bar
Council.
Distinction Between Contempt and Misconduct:
1.Contempt of court and professional misconduct are
distinct:
1.Contempt of court: Punishable by the judiciary
under constitutional powers.
2.Professional misconduct: To be dealt with by
the Bar Councils as per the Advocates Act.
2.An advocate guilty of contempt may face separate
disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council if the
conduct also constitutes professional misconduct.