Best Lawyers in Chennai | Top Law Firms | Leading Legal Consultants | Bar Councils (Validation of State Laws) act

Shocked at the instances of misbehaviour of advocates in Madras High Court premises, Supreme Court

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on January 28 striking down the disciplinary Rules framed by Madras High Court runs into seventy-eight pages and has dealt with myriad aspects concerning the Bar and the Bench.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran in a petition which had challenged Rules, 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D of Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970 (Madras High Court Rules). These Rules were inserted by way of an amendment in 2015.

The amended Rules contained grounds on which an advocate could be debarred by the High Court from appearing before the High Court and all subordinate courts. These grounds included abusing/browbeating a judge, spreading unfounded allegations against a judge, and appearing in court under the influence of alcohol.

The Petitioner had questioned the vires of amended Rules 14A to D on the ground of being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as also sections 30, 34(1), 35 and 49(1)(c) of the Advocates’ Act.

It was the contention of the petition that the power to debar advocates for such misconduct has been conferred upon the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and the High Court could not have framed such rules under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. The High Court could have framed rules as to the ‘conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto’. Debarment by way of disciplinary measure is outside the purview of section 34(1) of the Act, the petitioner had argued.

The Supreme Court had accepted the same and struck down the Rules.

It had held that Advocates Act has never intended to confer the disciplinary powers upon the High Court or upon this Court except to the extent dealing with an appeal under Section 38.

Section 34 of the Advocates Act does not confer such a power on High Courts to frame rules to debar lawyer for professional misconduct, the Supreme Court held. The High Court has no power to exercise the disciplinary control. It would amount to usurpation of the power of Bar Council conferred under Advocates Act, the Court made it clear before striking down the Rules.

The Court however, said that the High Court may punish advocate for contempt of court and then debar him from practicing for such specified period as may be permissible in accordance with law. However, it cannot impose punishment by way of disciplinary control.

However, the judgment has a lot more on offer. Below are the snippets from judgment on

Legal profession not commercial in nature, it is a noble one

The judgment waxes eloquent about the legal profession and the role of lawyers in the society.

The legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions.  It is not commercial in nature and is a noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on the society, the Court says.

The independence of the Bar and autonomy of the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily in order to preserve the very democracy itself and to ensure that judiciary remains strong. Where Bar has not performed the duty independently and has become a sycophant that ultimately results in the denigrating of the judicial system and judiciary itself. There cannot be existence of a strong judicial system without an independent Bar, the Bench has opined.

“It cannot be gainsaid that lawyers have contributed in the struggle for independence of the nation.    They have helped in the framing of the Constitution of India and have helped the Courts in evolving jurisprudence by doing hard labor and research work. “

Hence, the nobility of the legal system is to be ensured at all costs so that the Constitution remains vibrant and to expand its interpretation so as to meet new challenges.

Duty of the Bar to protect honest judges

The Court has also stressed on the role of the Bar in the legal system stating that it is the duty of the Bar to protect honest judges and not to ruin their reputation. At the same time, they have to ensure that corrupt judges are not spared.

However, the Court also made it clear that lawyers should not take to the streets or go on strike except when democracy itself is in danger and the entire judicial system is at stake. In order to improve the system, the Court opined, lawyers have to take recourse to the legally available methods by lodging complaint against corrupt judges to the appropriate administrative authorities and not to level such allegation in the public. The corruption is intolerable in the judiciary.

There is no room for arrogance either for a lawyer or for a judge, the Court held.

“The Bar is an integral part of the judicial administration. In order to ensure that judiciary remains an effective tool, it is absolutely necessary that Bar and Bench maintain dignity and decorum of each other. The mutual reverence is absolutely necessary….There is no room for arrogance either for a lawyer or for a Judge.”

Shocked by instances of misbehaviour by advocates in Madras High Court campus

The Court proceeded to state that it was forced to give lengthy observations on the relationship between the Bar and the Bench due to the instances of misbehaviour that were projected by the Madras High Court.

“The background as to what has happened in the High Court at Madras as projected in reply of the High Court, has prompted us to make the aforesaid observations.”

The Court noted that the atmosphere that had been created in Madras as projected in the counter affidavit filed by the High Court, would have prompted the Court to take a stern view of the matter by invoking Contempt of Courts Act. However, considerable time had passed and things have settled by now due to herculean effort of the High Court.

The Court made it amply clear that there is no room for taking out the procession in the Court premises, slogan raising in the Courts, use of loudspeakers, use of intemperate language with the Judges or to create any kind of disturbance in the Court. Its sanctity is not less than that of a holy place reserved for noble souls.

The Court did not hide its shock at the instances of misconduct by lawyers inside the premises of Madras High Court.

“We are shocked to note that the instances of abject misbehavior of the advocates in the premises of the High Court of Madras resulting into requisitioning of CISF to maintain safety and majesty of the Court and rule of law.”

The Court said that the High Court should not tolerate such intemperate behavior of the lawyers as projected in the counter affidavit of the High Court. The acts complained of are not only contemptuous but also tantamount to gross professional misconduct.

Some advocates feel they are the only champions of causes, attribute political motives to judges

The Court also came down heavily on lawyers who attribute political motives when judges pass orders in politically sensitive cases.

“Whenever any political matter comes to the Court and is decided, either way, political insinuations are attributed by unscrupulous persons/advocates. Such acts are nothing, but an act of denigrating the judiciary itself and destroys the faith of the common man which he reposes in the judicial system.   In case of genuine grievance against any judge, the appropriate process is to lodge a complaint to the concerned higher authorities who can take care of the situation and it is impermissible to malign the system itself by attributing political motives and by making false allegations against the judicial system and its functionaries. Judges who are attacked are not supposed to go to press or media to ventilate their point of view.”

Such advocates feel that they are above the Bar Council and they are the only champion of the causes. Terming it as “hunger for cheap publicity”, the Court said that the same is against the noble ideals of the profession.

“Unfortunately, some advocates feel that they are above the Bar Council due to its inaction and they are the only champion of the causes. The hunger for cheap publicity is increasing which is not permitted by the noble ideals cherished by the great doyens of the bar, they have set by their conduct what should be in fact the professional etiquettes and ethics which are not capable of being defined in a narrow compass. The statutory rules prohibit advocates from advertising and in fact to cater to the press/media, distorted versions of the court proceedings is sheer misconduct and contempt of court which has become very common.”

Such acts destroy the faith of common man in judicial system, the Court said.

Bar CounciI of India

The Court also did not hide its disappointment at the failure of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to regulate the profession.

Stating that it is really frustrating if the repository of the faith in the Bar fails to discharge its statutory duties, the Court said that it is high time that the Bar Council, as well as the various State Bar Councils, should take stock of the situation and improve the functioning of the disciplinary side, it said.

“It is absolutely necessary to maintain the independence of the Bar and if the cleaning process is not done by the Bar itself, its independence is in danger. The corrupt, unwanted, unethical element has no place in Bar. If nobility of the profession is destroyed, Bar can never remain independent. Independence is constituted by the observance of certain ideals and if those ideals are lost, the independence would only remain on paper, not in real sense.”

Further, in a case where the Bar Council is not taking appropriate action against the advocate, it would be open to the High Court to entertain the writ petition and to issue appropriate directions to the Bar Council to take action, the Court clarified.

“In our opinion, in case such state of affairs continues and Bar Council fails to discharge duties, the Court shall have to supervise its functioning and to pass appropriate permissible orders.”

News Courtesy: Bar and Bench