Madras HC Grants Police Protection To Advocate Who Didn't Abide By Bar Association's Boycott Call, Stays His Suspension From Association

The Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice B. Pugalendhi also put an interim stay on his suspended and has allowed him to attend the Court and use the Bar Room.

The matter before the Court

An Advocate, G. Sivakumar went to the Court to address the grievance of his clients, and before this Court, he also voiced his concern that he had been prevented from entering into the Court as well as the Bar Room, in which Association, he is a Member.

He stated before the Court that 'Nagercoil Bar Association' (2^nd Respondent) called for a boycott of the Courts on 08.12.2020 with regard to the farmers issue and the said decision was circulated through Social Media.

However, the petitioner attended the Court duty on 08.12.2020 and argued a case before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, which irked the Association to suspend the petitioner from the Association.

The Association issued an alleged Show Cause Notice, dated 09.12.2020, on 14.12.2020.

Resultantly, he alleged that he was prevented from entering into Courts, denying his statutory right to discharge his obligation to his client. Moreover, he also submitted that he was prevented from entering into the Association, Library and Wash Room.

Therefore, Advocate G. Sivakumar gave a complaint to the The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry on 16.12.2020, and approached Madras HC, challenging the order passed by the 'Nagercoil Bar Association' suspending him from the Association on 14.12.2020.

Court's Observations

The Court, in its order observed,

"Legal profession is a noble profession, where Advocates are supposed to discharge their duties not only towards their clients and also duties to the Society. However, now-a-days, quite often, Advocates are indulging in strikes and disturbing the functioning of Courts. Even for political reasons, some of the Associations are indulging in boycotts, according to the political affinity or communal affiliations and various other reasons."

Further, the Court remarked,

"This results in affecting not only the rights of the litigants, but also the Advocates, who are ready to discharge their statutory duty as per the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules."

Importantly, the Court said,

"The 'Bar leaders are neither labour leaders nor political leaders to call for a strike and they are advocates belonging to a noble profession.' They cannot resort to strike at any circumstances, when the aggrieved public are approaching the Court for the relief as the Court being the last resort."

Regarding the instant case, the Court observed,

"It is clear that the petitioner has not abided the boycott call given by the second respondent, which is illegal, and attended the Courts and therefore, he is taken to task. For having discharged his legal duty, the petitioner is being targeted and singled out and suspended from the Association."

The Court also opined that the petitioner only did his professional duty to his client and attended the Court and took part in the Justice delivery system by conducting cases.

"For that, the petitioner cannot be put to unnecessary hardship", said the Court.

Considering the circumstances under which the petitioner was suspended by the Association and was prevented from attending the Court and from using the Bar Room and looking at the likelihood of petitioner being abused and assaulted, the Court granted him Police Protection.

Lastly, Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry has been directed to take appropriate action against the Bar Association, "which called for the strike under Section 14 – A of the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987."

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 18^th January 2021.

Case title - G. Sivakumar v. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry [WP (MD) No.19293 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.16096 and 16100 of 2020]

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order