Madras High Court Criticises Madurai Bar Association's Resolution Criticising Judicial Order Which Made Wearing Helmets Mandatory Across State

Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the members had attempted to take the law into their own hands when they should have resorted to the alternate remedies available if the order was found to be unacceptable or unimplementable. The court made the remarks in a suo moto contempt petition initiated against the President and Secretary of the Madurai bar Association.

“Before we address their involvement in the contemptuous act, we would like to place on record our dis-satisfaction and disappointment to the manner in which the lawyers at Madurai had resorted to a coercive action over a judicial order passed by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court,” the court observed.

The court noted that through several decisions, the Supreme Court as well as different High Courts have emphasized the duties and responsibilities of lawyers. The court noted that lawyers could not go to the streets or go on strike except when democracy itself was in danger and the entire judicial system was at stake.

“On the contrary to the dismay of the litigants and the general public, such a coercive action has been resorted to, without exhausting the effective alternate remedy. This is not an isolated action of calling for a strike by the members of the Bar of this country. Time and again, when such illegal actions have been initiated by them, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as the various High Courts of our country, have condemned such acts and have also pointed out the duties and responsibilities, the Bar Association and lawyers owe to themselves, to the Court and to the society,” the court further observed.

Background

The suo moto contempt petition was initiated following a letter from the Madurai Principal District Judge highlighting resolutions passed by the Madurai Bar Association against an order of Justice N Kirubakaran.

In his order, Justice N Kirubakaran had mandated the wearing of helmets by two-wheeler riders in the State. The resolution condemned this order, criticized the judgment, and even noted that the action was for providing unlawful gain to the helmet sellers. After a contempt notice was issued to the President and Secretary of the Association, a procession was also organized by a group of lawyers.

The court disapproved the action of the members of the bar but also noted that it would not be appropriate to initiate action against the contemnors i.e., the President and the Secretary of the bar alone.

Emphasising that the court was not endorsing the actions of the President and the Secretary, the court closed the suo moto contempt proceedings taking note of the unconditional apology rendered by them and their age.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.V.Vijayashankar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Ms.D.Nagasaila, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal for Mr.S.Rajagopalan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 215

Case Title: High Court of Madras v P Dharmaraj and Others

Case No: Suo-Motu Cont.P.No.1592 of 2015