The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to revoke the suspension of 7 advocates practicing in the state..Though the division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and K Ravichandrabaabu dismissed the petitions challenging the interim suspension of the advocates, it ended up taking a kindly view to their plight..This, after the bench enlisted three categories of lawyers facing suspension..“(a) those, the misconduct alleged against whom is somewhat palatable that the suffering already undergone by them is sufficient for the revocation of interim suspension.(b) those, whose cases for revocation of interim suspension can wait for some more time in view of the nature of the allegations for which they are facing an enquiry.(c) those who are facing enquiry into very serious allegations, which warrants the continuation of the suspension until the disciplinary proceedings are concluded.”.And the bench has decided that the petitioners who appeared before them belonged to the first category..The Madras High Court campus has been witness to clashes between advocates and security personnel before, and this matter is no different. The incident dates back to November 2015, when the advocates allegedly came at loggerheads with the recently introduced CISF personnel on the campus..A Senior Commandant of the CISF had filed a complaint with the Registrar of the High Court, alleging that these 7 advocates, along with two others, “indulged in unruly conduct, intimidation, obstruction, wrongful restraint of the CISF personnel, destruction of public property using unparliamentary and filthy language.”.Just two days later, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed the state bar council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocates and to conclude the same within 8 weeks..The Chairman of the state bar council, D Selvam, acquiesced to this direction and passed an order prohibiting the advocates from practising as advocates in any court pending these proceedings..The advocates then appeared before the disciplinary committee on December 12, filing applications for the revocation of the interim suspension. The committee would later accept the advocates’ request and allow the stay on suspension of practice..Then, quite mysteriously, one of the members of the disciplinary committee, K Rajaraman resigned, prompting the hearing to be shifted to January 2 this year. It was later found that Rajaraman quit on the ground that the Chairman of the committee “passed an order allowing the applications for stay and insisted upon him to sign it”. Meanwhile, the BCI Chairman had other plans; he passed an order on December 31 transferring the proceedings to Karnataka, so as to ensure a fair enquiry..And so, seven of the advocates challenged their suspension in the High Court, stating that it was the state bar council and not the BCI which had the prerogative of initiating disciplinary proceedings against advocates. The state bar council Chairman’s decision to suspend the advocates as well as the BCI Chairman’s order transferring the proceedings to the Karnataka Bar Council were also called into question..However, the court held that the BCI was well within its rights to order state bar councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per its powers under Section 48-B of the Advocates Act. Therefore, all the contentions of the petitioners were rejected..Having said that, the court ended up directing the state bar council to revoke the suspension. It took into consideration the fact that the advocates had been prohibited from practicing for more than hundred days. Moreover, they had filed affidavits assuring the court that they would not interfere with the CISF’s functioning in the High Court campus..However, the court made it clear that this order would apply only to the petitioners who appeared before them and not to other advocates who were suspended. It was also clarified that the disciplinary proceedings against the advocates before the Karnataka bar council would continue..Towards the end of the order, the bench takes note of the Madras High Court advocates’ chequered history. In a throwback to the Kanhaiya Kumar bail order passed by the Delhi High Court, the bench mulls over whether “surgical procedure” is required to remove the undesirable elements..“…the disease of boycotting courts and confronting the Judiciary, reached its advanced stage, where surgical procedure alone became the only solution. We do not know if we are at a stage where amputation of some limbs is warranted.”.It also noted that CISF personnel had taken video recordings of other advocates indulging in disruptive activities, who have not been brought to book yet. Further, it was noted that a group of advocates recently staged a protest outside Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s house..Nevertheless, the court noted that ever since Justice Kaul asked for CISF security to be deployed on the campus, there has been only one boycott since September of last year. In the aftermath of that agitation, action was initiated against as many as 15 advocates for wreaking havoc on the campus..Read the order:
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to revoke the suspension of 7 advocates practicing in the state..Though the division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and K Ravichandrabaabu dismissed the petitions challenging the interim suspension of the advocates, it ended up taking a kindly view to their plight..This, after the bench enlisted three categories of lawyers facing suspension..“(a) those, the misconduct alleged against whom is somewhat palatable that the suffering already undergone by them is sufficient for the revocation of interim suspension.(b) those, whose cases for revocation of interim suspension can wait for some more time in view of the nature of the allegations for which they are facing an enquiry.(c) those who are facing enquiry into very serious allegations, which warrants the continuation of the suspension until the disciplinary proceedings are concluded.”.And the bench has decided that the petitioners who appeared before them belonged to the first category..The Madras High Court campus has been witness to clashes between advocates and security personnel before, and this matter is no different. The incident dates back to November 2015, when the advocates allegedly came at loggerheads with the recently introduced CISF personnel on the campus..A Senior Commandant of the CISF had filed a complaint with the Registrar of the High Court, alleging that these 7 advocates, along with two others, “indulged in unruly conduct, intimidation, obstruction, wrongful restraint of the CISF personnel, destruction of public property using unparliamentary and filthy language.”.Just two days later, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed the state bar council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocates and to conclude the same within 8 weeks..The Chairman of the state bar council, D Selvam, acquiesced to this direction and passed an order prohibiting the advocates from practising as advocates in any court pending these proceedings..The advocates then appeared before the disciplinary committee on December 12, filing applications for the revocation of the interim suspension. The committee would later accept the advocates’ request and allow the stay on suspension of practice..Then, quite mysteriously, one of the members of the disciplinary committee, K Rajaraman resigned, prompting the hearing to be shifted to January 2 this year. It was later found that Rajaraman quit on the ground that the Chairman of the committee “passed an order allowing the applications for stay and insisted upon him to sign it”. Meanwhile, the BCI Chairman had other plans; he passed an order on December 31 transferring the proceedings to Karnataka, so as to ensure a fair enquiry..And so, seven of the advocates challenged their suspension in the High Court, stating that it was the state bar council and not the BCI which had the prerogative of initiating disciplinary proceedings against advocates. The state bar council Chairman’s decision to suspend the advocates as well as the BCI Chairman’s order transferring the proceedings to the Karnataka Bar Council were also called into question..However, the court held that the BCI was well within its rights to order state bar councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per its powers under Section 48-B of the Advocates Act. Therefore, all the contentions of the petitioners were rejected..Having said that, the court ended up directing the state bar council to revoke the suspension. It took into consideration the fact that the advocates had been prohibited from practicing for more than hundred days. Moreover, they had filed affidavits assuring the court that they would not interfere with the CISF’s functioning in the High Court campus..However, the court made it clear that this order would apply only to the petitioners who appeared before them and not to other advocates who were suspended. It was also clarified that the disciplinary proceedings against the advocates before the Karnataka bar council would continue..Towards the end of the order, the bench takes note of the Madras High Court advocates’ chequered history. In a throwback to the Kanhaiya Kumar bail order passed by the Delhi High Court, the bench mulls over whether “surgical procedure” is required to remove the undesirable elements..“…the disease of boycotting courts and confronting the Judiciary, reached its advanced stage, where surgical procedure alone became the only solution. We do not know if we are at a stage where amputation of some limbs is warranted.”.It also noted that CISF personnel had taken video recordings of other advocates indulging in disruptive activities, who have not been brought to book yet. Further, it was noted that a group of advocates recently staged a protest outside Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s house..Nevertheless, the court noted that ever since Justice Kaul asked for CISF security to be deployed on the campus, there has been only one boycott since September of last year. In the aftermath of that agitation, action was initiated against as many as 15 advocates for wreaking havoc on the campus..Read the order:
