Lawyers of the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHCAA) are opposing the newly framed disciplinary rules tooth and nail..Last week, the rules were published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, in line with the High Court’s power to lay down conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise as per Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act 1961..The rules contain grounds on which an advocate could be disbarred, grounds which include abusing/browbeating a judge, spreading unfounded allegations against a judge, and appearing in court under the influence of alcohol..In reaction to the notification, members of the MHCAA convened a General Body meeting yesterday to discuss this very issue. That meeting culminated in the passing of a resolution in which the new rules were unanimously condemned..Speaking to Bar & Bench, MHCAA President Paul Kanagaraj said,.“The General Body decided to submit a memorandum to the Chief Justice, asking him to withdraw the amendment. The rules are against the fundamental rights of practising advocates. .We are planning to organise state-wide agitations and rallies. We will conduct a mass rally on June 6 and ask all bar associations in the state to support us.”.While a section of the Bar is against the rules as a whole, there are some who believe that the rules are a welcome move, save for a few problematic provisions..Senior Advocate P Wilson notes,.“This amendment has been notified in furtherance of two Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Harish Uppal and RK Anand. In 2009, all high courts were directed to frame disciplinary rules..Insofar as the rules, there are two clauses under Rule 14-A, ix and x which are problematic. In ix, there is no definition of what constitutes “abuse” or “browbeating” of judges. .In any grounds of appeal or revision before the High Court challenging the lower courts order the usual attack on the impugned judgment or order is that that the lower court has not applied its mind or finding of the lower court is perverse etc. Can these grounds be termed as abuse or browbeating a judge?.More so, any judge while hearing a case he may be unaware of a settled law or obsessed with a proposition which may not be correct. While arguing a case before such judge a lawyer has to explain to him that the judge views may not be correct. Will it amount to browbeating or abusing a judge?.This rule confers unbridled power on the High Court to proceed against an advocate, which is antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution.”.Wilson points out that there is scope misuse of clause x, which deals with making unsubstantiated allegations against a judge..“If an advocate wants to make a genuine complaint against the judge, who is going to take it up? What sort of proof is required to show that the complaint is not unfounded? How will the investigation be carried out?.The investigation has to be done by the vigilance department. If the department fails to investigate properly should a lawyer suffer? Therefore, unsubstantiated complaint cannot be put against a lawyer to an extent of debarring him from practise. The punishment is also disproportionate.”.Moreover, the procedure for disciplinary action under Rule 14-C poses another difficulty. It is provided that the High Court judge or district judge who initiates such action has the power to pass final orders against a supposedly errant advocate, without any interference from the Chief Justice of the court..As Wilson concludes,.“You cannot expect the rules, as they are, to be accepted by the advocates. There are areas which the Court has to look into. If not, there will be situation where advocates are fearful while presenting their case.”
Lawyers of the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHCAA) are opposing the newly framed disciplinary rules tooth and nail..Last week, the rules were published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, in line with the High Court’s power to lay down conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise as per Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act 1961..The rules contain grounds on which an advocate could be disbarred, grounds which include abusing/browbeating a judge, spreading unfounded allegations against a judge, and appearing in court under the influence of alcohol..In reaction to the notification, members of the MHCAA convened a General Body meeting yesterday to discuss this very issue. That meeting culminated in the passing of a resolution in which the new rules were unanimously condemned..Speaking to Bar & Bench, MHCAA President Paul Kanagaraj said,.“The General Body decided to submit a memorandum to the Chief Justice, asking him to withdraw the amendment. The rules are against the fundamental rights of practising advocates. .We are planning to organise state-wide agitations and rallies. We will conduct a mass rally on June 6 and ask all bar associations in the state to support us.”.While a section of the Bar is against the rules as a whole, there are some who believe that the rules are a welcome move, save for a few problematic provisions..Senior Advocate P Wilson notes,.“This amendment has been notified in furtherance of two Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Harish Uppal and RK Anand. In 2009, all high courts were directed to frame disciplinary rules..Insofar as the rules, there are two clauses under Rule 14-A, ix and x which are problematic. In ix, there is no definition of what constitutes “abuse” or “browbeating” of judges. .In any grounds of appeal or revision before the High Court challenging the lower courts order the usual attack on the impugned judgment or order is that that the lower court has not applied its mind or finding of the lower court is perverse etc. Can these grounds be termed as abuse or browbeating a judge?.More so, any judge while hearing a case he may be unaware of a settled law or obsessed with a proposition which may not be correct. While arguing a case before such judge a lawyer has to explain to him that the judge views may not be correct. Will it amount to browbeating or abusing a judge?.This rule confers unbridled power on the High Court to proceed against an advocate, which is antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution.”.Wilson points out that there is scope misuse of clause x, which deals with making unsubstantiated allegations against a judge..“If an advocate wants to make a genuine complaint against the judge, who is going to take it up? What sort of proof is required to show that the complaint is not unfounded? How will the investigation be carried out?.The investigation has to be done by the vigilance department. If the department fails to investigate properly should a lawyer suffer? Therefore, unsubstantiated complaint cannot be put against a lawyer to an extent of debarring him from practise. The punishment is also disproportionate.”.Moreover, the procedure for disciplinary action under Rule 14-C poses another difficulty. It is provided that the High Court judge or district judge who initiates such action has the power to pass final orders against a supposedly errant advocate, without any interference from the Chief Justice of the court..As Wilson concludes,.“You cannot expect the rules, as they are, to be accepted by the advocates. There are areas which the Court has to look into. If not, there will be situation where advocates are fearful while presenting their case.”
