In order to assert its authority, it hasused its power of contempt not just to punish the president of the Bar Councilof India for being rude to Allahabad judges, but also stripped him of all hisposts and the right to practice. This is a decision of doubtful validity but hasfrightening implications for all professionals. The court pulled up one of itslawyers for the inadvertent filing of misleading drafts; and severely dealt withPunjab officials for their savage violations of the rule of law. Yet, itsdecision in the Vasudevan case, involving jail for an official (who appears tobe wrongly convicted for contempt for orders he could not have intended toviolate) has both astonished and sent shudders down the back of the bureaucracy,which has also been put on notice that it will be personally liable for grosscontempts and violations of the rule of law in other cases. Bombay lawyers whowere virtually browbeating Chief Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee to resign werewarned to show restraint. Yet, in the Sariska case, the court did no more thanissue a warning to a person who had intimidated senior counsel physically anddid not even bother to turn up for the Supreme Court hearings when mandated todo so. The court's contempt jurisprudence is messy and ad hoc. Yet, itsmessage is clear: if the court is to function in its newly assigned and assumedrole, it must have respect and cooperation, otherwise the entire judicialenterprise of protecting the rule of law is put at risk.