Madras High Court lawyers clash again in front of CJI and Law Minister

A year after the large scale lawyers protest at the Madras High Court, history has repeated itself. The Madras High Court today witnessed a fresh round of violence and attacks by its lawyers..A year after the large scale lawyers protest at the Madras High Court, history has repeated itself. The Madras High Court today witnessed a fresh round of violence and attacks by its lawyers. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan,the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court H.L. Gokhale, Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily, Supreme Court Judge P. Sathasivam, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Karunanidhi and Tamil Nadu State Law Minister Durai Murugan were present at the Madras High Court premises to unveil the statute of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar..A group of lawyers were objecting to the participation of Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi at the function as he had failed to take action against the police force for the attack on lawyers in February 2009..The Hindu reports that immediately after the Chief Minister began his speech, a dozen advocates, belonging to a Tamil nationalist fringe group, Manitha Urimai Paathukaapu Maiyam (MUPM), waved black flags and raised slogans against him. Shouts of “Anumathiyom! Anumathiyom! (We won’t allow!)” rang the air..Speaking to The Hindu, Suresh, the leader of MUPM, said they objected to the presence of the Chief Minister, because he had failed to take action against the four officers who the MUPM alleged were responsible for the police action against the advocates at the High Court campus on February 19, 2009..Amidst this chaos, the Chief Minister proposed the use of Tamil as a language in the Supreme Court. As a first step he requested the judges of the Madras High Court to use Tamil as a language for court proceedings..The common man is fazed by the question of what aspect of our democracy is worse? Lawyers responsible for upholding the rule of the law, resorting to violence against fellow lawyers and media personalities? Or, the police, responsible for safeguarding the public resorting to violence against lawyers and judges? This instance just goes to show why the freedoms enshrined in Article 19 of our Consitution need to be limited by Article 19(2).