Question

In which famous case this issue had come up. Whether the advocate had committed a professional misconduct and is guilty of the offence of the criminal contempt of the Court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the Court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language.

• A. Vinay Chandra Mishra, In Re
• B. Ex -Capt. Harish Uppal V. Union of India
• C. Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad Arya and ors
• D. None of the above

Hint:

For Professional Ethics, remember the leading cases for different types of misconduct: \textit{Vinay Chandra Mishra} (contemptuous behaviour towards a judge), \textit{Harish Uppal} (lawyers' strikes), and \textit{P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti} (misconduct involving property dealings).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question describes a severe form of professional misconduct by an advocate, which also amounts to criminal contempt of court. It asks to identify the landmark case where these specific facts were adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The facts described in the question precisely match the case of In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584.
In this case, Mr. Vinay Chandra Mishra, a senior advocate and then Chairman of the Bar Council of India, was accused of using insulting, disrespectful, and threatening language against a judge of the Allahabad High Court during a judicial proceeding. He was trying to pressure the judge into passing a favorable order.
The Supreme Court took up the matter and held that such conduct not only constituted gross professional misconduct but also amounted to criminal contempt of court, as it scandalized the court and interfered with the administration of justice. The Court found him guilty and sentenced him to simple imprisonment and suspended his license to practice as an advocate for three years.
- \textit{Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal} is the landmark case where the Supreme Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or call for a boycott of courts.
- \textit{Hikmat Ali Khan} also deals with professional misconduct (involving an assault within court premises) but the facts described in the question are the specific subject matter of the \textit{Vinay Chandra Mishra} case.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The famous case with these specific facts is Vinay Chandra Mishra, In Re.

Answer 2

The question describes an advocate who threatened, overawed, and used insulting and disrespectful language toward a court, and asks in which famous case this exact fact pattern was considered as both professional misconduct and criminal contempt. Let us weigh each option against these specific facts.

1. Vinay Chandra Mishra, In Re: In this case, a senior advocate who was also the sitting Chairman of the Bar Council of India used intimidating and disrespectful language against a judge during proceedings, attempting to pressure the court into a particular order. The Supreme Court treated this conduct as both gross professional misconduct and criminal contempt because it directly obstructed and overawed the administration of justice, which mirrors the fact pattern in the question precisely.
2. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India: This case is remembered for a completely different proposition, namely that lawyers have no right to call a strike or boycott court proceedings, since doing so denies litigants access to justice. It does not involve an advocate threatening or insulting a court during a hearing.
3. Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad Arya and ors: This case also concerns professional misconduct by an advocate, but the misconduct there involved a physical assault on an opposing party within court premises, not verbal intimidation of the court itself through insulting or threatening language.
4. None of the above: This would only be correct if none of the named cases matched, but the first option matches the facts exactly.

Since the specific conduct described, insulting and threatening language directed at overawing the court, was the actual subject matter litigated and decided in the first case, the correct answer is Vinay Chandra Mishra, In Re.