Advocates should not be ‘fence eating the grass’- should not impede smooth functioning of Courts; Madras HC [Read Order]

The Advocates, should not be 'fence eating the grass'. They should not impede the running of the Courts, place bottlenecks on the road to justice, ­the Court said.

Madras High Court has closed the Suo motu contempt petition initiated against four Advocates for disrupting the Court proceedings in a District Court, after they submitted their unconditional apology as affidavits.The court also directed the Advocates to appear before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, in open Court and tender their unconditional apology.

A Division bench of Justices Satish K. Agnihotri and Dr.P.Devadass said that the Advocates, should not impede the running of the Courts, place bottlenecks on the road to justice.The court also asked Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take strict disciplinary action as per the Rules and Regulations in case, if the Advocates indulge in similar disruptive activities in future.

The incident

The court had initiated Suo motu contempt proceedings after it received a report from the District Judge that on 17.3.2015, the four Advocates locked the entrance to the Court building and prevented the Presiding Officer, the Court staff and others from entering the Court. These Advocates also disruptedthe Court proceedings and hurled abuses at the Munsiff and the Court staffs.

The Advocates appeared before the High Court and they were asked to submit their unconditional apology to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram and also to presiding officer of the District Court. In their affidavit, the lawyers submitted their unconditional apology and pledged to function in a manner upholding the dignity and prestige of the profession and the Majesty of Law and Law Courts.

Advocates should not be ‘fence eating the grass’

After perusing the Apology affidavits, the court remarked that the Advocates, should not be 'fence eating the grass'. They should not impede the running of the Courts, place bottlenecks on the road to justice. The court also said that should not have closed the doors of the Court, preventing the Presiding Officer, the Court staff and the litigant public to enter the Court.

Highlighting the duties of Advocates, the Court said the members of the Bar, who are Officers of the Court, has a basic duty to assist the Court in its mission to deliver justice. 'Access to justice', 'recourse to judicial remedies' itself an essential feature of democratic countries. In affording people such access, the learned members of the Bar are tools for the CourtBench and the Bar shall work in unison to run the Chariot of justice smoothly, the bench said.

Lawyers disrupting court proceedings unacceptable

The bench also cautioned the bar not to disrupt the court functioning to redress their grievances. If the Bar members have any grievance as against any Presiding Officer, they should bring it to the notice of the Principal District Judge. Lawyers themselves have their own method of redressing their grievances cannot be accepted, digested, the court said.

It was only two weeks ago, the Supreme Court, raising serious concern over the violence indulged in by lawyers in the Madras High Court premises, refused to interfere with HC’s order for deployment of CISF by replacing state police security in the court complex.The Bar Council of India had suspended 15 advocates, including President and Secretary of Madurai Bar Association for indulging in violence in the Madras High Court.

Read the order here.