Madras High Court Advocates Association today said it had great respect for Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, but could not accept his remark that they were parties to framing of amended rules as no agenda was placed before them on the issue and they were "kept in the dark."
"No agenda was placed before MHAA office bearers with regard to the amendments to the Advocates Act and we were kept in the dark," said MHAA President R C Paul Kanagaraj.
He said they welcomed the gesture of the Chief Justice that the process of consideration of suggestions from the Bar was not too far off, but at the same time could not accept that they were parties for framing of amended rules.
Stating that certain rules framed were lowering the image of advocates, he said their proposed rally would not be against the High Court or Supreme Court and be peaceful. "It is to show the unity of the advocates community and not against anyone."
Kanagaraj contended that no other state had brought in these types of amendments and said the rules now framed were based on a 2009 Judgement of the Supreme Court.
Alleging that the amendments are against independence of advocates, he said if any action is to be taken against erring lawyers, contempt proceedings are in existence and courts can very well take action by using contempt of court.
"We have great respect for Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and welcome his gesture that the process of consideration of suggestions from the Bar is not too far. But at the same time we cannot accept that we were parties for the framing of amended rules," he said.
The Chief Justice had yesterday said the proposed rally by the High Court Advocates' Association and Women Lawyers' Association on June 6 to protest against the amendments to existing rules under the Advocates Act was "unwarranted".
The amendments were not brought suddenly or it was not brought out in a single day, he had told reporters.
Kanagaraj said their June 6 rally would be as per rules andthere would be no untoward activities. The rally was not a boycott and MHAA does not want to compel or obstruct lawyers who would like to attend courts for their cases, he said.
The CJ had said no Association representative had given any suggestion, raised any objection or showed any apprehension over framing of rules and that the Judges Committee only implemented directions of the Supreme Court.
If any apprehension were there, the associations were well within their limits to approach the apex court.
The rules were framed after due deliberations, the committee placed the rules before the Full Court and finally approved it. Thereafter, the rules were notified in the Government Gazette on May 25. Now the advocates cannot claim that they are not aware of it. There is no question of ignorance, Justice Kaul had said.
