TN Bar Council order suspending 5,970 Advocates kept in abeyance for two weeks after MHAA moves Madras HC

The recent order of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (TN Bar Council) suspending 5, 970 Advocates over the non-payment of subscription fees to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, will be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks..The TN Bar Council agreed to do the same after a petition moved by Madras High Courts Advocates Association (MHAA) came up this afternoon before the Madurai Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and R Pongiappan. The Bench heard the matter sitting at the Madurai Bench through video conferencing..The suspension notification issued last Friday had promptly invited challenges before the Madras High Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. Before the High Court, the MHAA’s petition challenged the suspension order as unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the rights of Advocates to practice law under the provisions of the Advocates’ Act, 1961..The petition also questioned whether the rules under which the suspension order was issued were valid at all. The rules in question are Rules 40-42 under Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. These rules are framed pursuant to Section 49 (1) (c) of the Advocates’ Act which deals with “Standard of Conduct and Etiquette”. However, the MHAA contends that the failure to pay subscription fees to the Advocates Welfare Fund is not a matter falling under the purview of conduct and etiquette..In any case, the petition emphasises that the power of suspension from practice is an extraordinary disciplinary power vested in the State Bar Council which cannot be exercised in a cavalier manner. While this is the case, the MHAA has contended that the suspension was ordered in violation of natural justice principles as it was issued without adequate notice..However, during the hearing today, the TN Bar Council through Senior Advocate R Singaravelan, countered this contention, submitting that multiple notices had been issued by post, apart from online notices. The fact that a bulk of these notices were returned for want of proper address was also brought to the Court’s attention..Another aspect noted in the MHAA’s petition is that membership in the Advocates Welfare Fund is voluntary. Therefore, the non-payment of the fee for the subscription would only entail a loss of benefits under this scheme. On the other hand, “suspension for practice for such non-payment is antithetical to the nature of the Scheme.”.This petition was mentioned for urgent hearing yesterday before Chief Justice VK Tahilramani, who then posted the matter before the Bench headed by Justice Kirubakaran. The matter is posted to be taken up next on April 11..A public interest litigation petition has also been filed before the Supreme Court by advocate Sabarish Subramanian challenging the TN Bar Council order. This petition is expected to come up for hearing on Friday..Read the MHAA petition: