Shocking That Lawyer Is Seeking Protection To Run Brothel: Madras HC Asks State Bar Council To Ensure Members Are Enrolled From 'Reputed Institutions'

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that it was high time the bar council realised that the reputation of advocates was decreasing in the society. The court added that it was unfortunate that the brother service business was being done by a person claiming to be an advocate from the Kanyakumari District which is known for being 100% literate.

“It is high time the Bar Council has to realise that the reputation of the Advocates in the society is getting decreased. At least hereafter the Bar Council shall ensure that members are enrolled only from reputed institutions and restrict the enrollment from unreputed institutions from Andhrapradesh, Karnataka and other States,” the court said.

The court was hearing two petitions filed by an Advocate Raja Murrugan, for quashing an FIR charged against his and a mandamus directing the police not to interfere with his business. Murrugan had informed the court that he was running a trust for providing services of volunteer sex between consenting adults, counselling, and oil baths for persons above the age of 18 years.

Based on a search by the Inspector of Police, Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, an FIR was registered against Muruggan for the offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(a), 5(1)(a) and Sections 7(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Sections 366(A) and 342 of the IPC and Sections 5(1), 11(6), 12, 13(b), 14(1), 6, 7, 8 of the POCSO Act.

Murrugan had contended that the police action was against the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Budhadev Karmaskar vs. the State of West Bengal. He further argued that his ex-wife and her parents had foisted the criminal case against him by sending a 17-year-old girl to the trust, which was followed by a police search.

On being shocked by such a petition by a lawyer, the court asked Murrugan to produce his enrollment certificate and law degree certificate to ascertain whether he actually studied law and was enrolled with any bar association.

The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that Murugan was a B-Tech graduate and had a Bar Council Identity with an enrolment number. The APP however told the court that they were unable to ascertain if Murugan had studied law.

The court noted that Murugan had failed to understand the context in which the Supreme Court had passed the judgment in the Budhadev case. The court added that while the SC had taken up the case for preventing trafficking and ensuring rehabilitation of sex workers, in the present case, Murrugan had exploited a minor girl by taking advantage of her poverty.

The court added that the purpose of the law was to preserve the moral sanctity that regulates society. The court remarked that the legal profession was still considered a legal one and was a service-oriented profession aimed to serve society. The court added that lawyers were considered social engineers bringing social change and development.

Since Muruggan claimed that he was an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the court directed the Bar Council to ascertain the genuineness of his enrolment and educational certificates and proceed further based on the genuineness. The court also asked the police to find out the genuineness and report the same to the Bar Council.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.K.H.Raja Murrugan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Addl.Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

Case Title: Raja Murrugan v Superintendent of Police

Case No: CRL OP(MD) No.9399 of 2024