Dr. ANAND, J. - (1.) In Re:Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584 , this Court found the contemner, an advocate, guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court for having interfered with and "obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the Court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language". While awarding punishment, keeping in view the gravity of the contumacious conduct of the contemner, the Court said:"The facts and circumstances of the present case justify our invoking the power under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution to award to the contemner a suspended sentence of imprisonment together with suspension of his practice as an advocate in the manner directed herein. We accordingly sentence the contemner for his conviction for the offence of criminal contempt as under: (a) The contemner Vinay Chandra Mishra is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. However, in the circumstances of the case, the sentence will remain suspended for a period of four years and may be activated in case the contemner is convicted for any other offence of contempt of Court within the said period; and (b) The contemner shall stand suspended from practising as an advocate for a period of three years from today with the consequence that all elective and nominated offices/posts at present held by him in his capacity as an advocate, shall stand vacated by him forthwith."
(2.) Aggrieved by the direction that the "contemner shall stand suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of three years" issued by this Court by invoking powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Bar Association, through its Honorary Secretary, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "Issue an appropriate writ, direction, or declaration, declaring that the disciplinary committees of the Bar Councils set up under the Advocates Act, 1961, alone have exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into and suspend or debar an advocate from practising law for professional or other misconduct, arising out of punishment imposed for contempt of Court or otherwise and further declare that the Supreme Court of India or any High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has no such original jurisdiction, power or authority in that regard, notwithstanding the contrary view held by this Hon'ble Court in Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 3 of 1994 dated 10-3-1995."
(3.) On 21-3-1995, while issuing Rule in the writ petition, following order was made by the Division Bench: "The question which arises is whether the Supreme Court of India can while dealing with Contempt Proceedings exercise power under Article 129 of the Constitution or under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution or under Article 142 of the Constitution can debar a practising lawyer from carrying on his profession as a lawyer for any period whatsoever. We direct notice to issue on the Attorney General of India and on the respondents herein. Notice will also issue on the application for interim stay. Having regard to the importance of the aforesaid question we further direct that this petition be placed before a Constitution Bench of this Court. That is how this Writ Petition has been placed before this Constitution Bench.;