In a bid to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession, the Madras High Court has framed a set of disciplinary rules for advocates appearing before courts in the state of Tamil Nadu..The new rules, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on May 25, is in line with the High Court’s power to lay down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise, as per Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act 1961..Under the new rules, disciplinary action can be taken against an advocate on the following grounds:.“(vii) An Advocate who is found to have accepted money in the name of a Judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or.(viii) An Advocate who is found to have tampered with the Court record or Court order; or.(ix) An Advocate who browbeats and/or abuses a Judge or Judicial Officer; or.(x) An Advocate who is found to have sent or spread unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations/petitions against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the Superior Court; or.(xi) An Advocate who actively participates in a procession inside the Court campus and/or involves in gherao inside the Court Hall or holds placard inside the Court Hall; or.(xii) An Advocate who appears in the Court under the influence of liquor shall be debarred from appearing before the High Court or Subordinate Courts permanently or for such period as the Court may think fit and the Registrar General shall thereupon report the said fact to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.”.Judges of the High Court as well as those of subordinate courts are empowered to initiate action against, and even debar an advocate on any of the aforementioned grounds..Given the history of misdemeanour at the Madras High Court and other courts in the state, the new rules will come as a relief..Last year, Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked for CRPF security on the High Court campus after a lawyers’ protest turned awry, leading judges to fear for their safety. In February this year, a lawyer from Madurai was sentenced to prison after daring a Division Bench to take action against him..Read the gazette notification:
In a bid to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession, the Madras High Court has framed a set of disciplinary rules for advocates appearing before courts in the state of Tamil Nadu..The new rules, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on May 25, is in line with the High Court’s power to lay down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise, as per Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act 1961..Under the new rules, disciplinary action can be taken against an advocate on the following grounds:.“(vii) An Advocate who is found to have accepted money in the name of a Judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or.(viii) An Advocate who is found to have tampered with the Court record or Court order; or.(ix) An Advocate who browbeats and/or abuses a Judge or Judicial Officer; or.(x) An Advocate who is found to have sent or spread unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations/petitions against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the Superior Court; or.(xi) An Advocate who actively participates in a procession inside the Court campus and/or involves in gherao inside the Court Hall or holds placard inside the Court Hall; or.(xii) An Advocate who appears in the Court under the influence of liquor shall be debarred from appearing before the High Court or Subordinate Courts permanently or for such period as the Court may think fit and the Registrar General shall thereupon report the said fact to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.”.Judges of the High Court as well as those of subordinate courts are empowered to initiate action against, and even debar an advocate on any of the aforementioned grounds..Given the history of misdemeanour at the Madras High Court and other courts in the state, the new rules will come as a relief..Last year, Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked for CRPF security on the High Court campus after a lawyers’ protest turned awry, leading judges to fear for their safety. In February this year, a lawyer from Madurai was sentenced to prison after daring a Division Bench to take action against him..Read the gazette notification: