Observing that the disease of court boycott and confronting judiciary is at an advanced stage where surgical procedure alone is the solution, the Madras High Court today rejected the arguments of 7 debarred lawyers that Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry order is arbitrary but asked it to take a sympathetic view and revoke the suspension.
The seven were barred by the BCTP for indiscipline on a complaint by CISF to the Registrar General of Madras High court on November 20 2015, alleging that they and two other lawyers had indulged in unruly conduct, intimidation, obstruction,wrongful restraint of CISF personnel, destruction of public property and used abusive language.
CISF is in charge of security of the High Court.
"Neither the initiation of proceedings nor the issue of a prohibitory order preventing the writ petitioners from practising in any court nor the transfer of the proceedings to the Disciplinary Committee of the Karnataka State Bar Council can be taken exception to," Justice V Ramasubramanian said writing the judgement for the bench.
However, he and Justice K Ravichandra Babu directed BCTP to take a sympathetic view and revoke the interim prohibitory orders against the seven lawyers "without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings and to pass orders within a week."
The CISF commandant had in a separate communication to the Registrar General on that day submitted a copy of a complaint given by a lady CISF Sub Inspector.
He also lodged a police complaint for alleged offences under various sections of IPC read with Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, against all the lawyers.
On November 22 2015, Bar Council of India directed BCTP to initiate disciplinary proceedings, after which they were debarred, pending disposal of disciplinary proceedings.
The lawyers then moved the court, contending that the order was arbitary.
The Bench upheld the BCTP action and observed that the situation in the court had gone completely out of control and its very functioning and of subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu "has come to depend on the mercy of a few groups of lawyers."
It observed that lawyers who issued boycott calls choose legal remedies and said if this wisdom had dawned on them when the disease afflicting the legal fraternity was in the initial stage, it could have been cured with some bitter pills.
"Since it did not happen, the disease of boycotting the 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.
On the lawyers' suspension, the bench said 100 days had
passed since the incidents occurred and that cases against them fell in the category where the alleged misconduct is "somewhat palatable that the suffering already undergone by them is sufficient for revocation of interim suspension."
"Therefore, we are of the considered view that a limited positive direction could be issued to Bar Council to revoke the suspension of the petitioners in these writ petitions," it said.
However, the bench made it clear that this order would not apply to other advocates facing suspension.
"We are not interfering with the disciplinary proceedings pending before the Karnataka State Bar Council and we have not found fault either with the Chairmen of the respective Bar Councils or with the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India, both with regard to the suspension and initiation of proceedings and with regard to the transfer of the proceedings to the State of Karnataka," the bench said.
On October 14 2015, Madras High Court had ordered that the "inner circle" of its campuses here and Madurai be brought under CISF protection as a temporary measure and directed the state and central governments to jointly formulate a security protocol.
It had taken up the suo motu PIL after it saw unruly scenes and obstruction by lawyers agitating for declaration of Tamil as official court language and over contempt of court proceedings against two Madurai-based Bar leaders.
On November 4, the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the HC for deployment of CISF by replacing state police security at its Chennai premises.
