IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12/08/2004
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR
WPMP.No.28363 of 2004
and
WPMP.No.28364 of 2004 in W.P.No.23418 of 2004
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice)
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate
General, and learned Additional Solicitor General and having regard to the
facts and circumstances, we pass the following order :
Since last several years, the practice of boycott had been prevalent
in the State of Tamilnadu even for every minor issue. Boycott is not the
solution and in fact, boycott is uncalled for and unconstitutional.
Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of EX. CAPT.HARISH
UPPAL v. UNION OF INDIA (2003) 2 SCC 45) held that boycott is illegal and the
High Courts were also directed to frame the rules under Section 34 of the
Advocates Act.
2. Regarding the constitution of Madurai Bench for Madras High Court
at Madurai, there had been agitations from the Bar Association of the southern
districts and counter agitations from the northern districts of Tamilnadu,
particularly from the advocates practising in Madras High Court. The writ
petitions questioning Presidential Order dated 6.7.2004 constituting Madurai
Bench were heard finally on 4.8.2004 and reserved for judgement.
3. On the administrative side, pursuant to the directives of the Honourable
The Chief Justice of India, a committee of nine Judges was constituted chaired
by the Chief Justice (myself) to go into the division of the districts between
the Principal Bench and Madurai Bench and having completed hearings in two
sittings on 7.7.2004 and 14.7.2004, the matter is under consideration so as to
apprise the Honourable The Chief Justice of India. But, the agitations were
continuing unabated with the boycotting of the Courts and that lead the High
Court to frame rules under Section 34 of the Advocates Act as directed by the
Supreme Court and the result is the framing of the rules gazetted on 3
0.7.2004, which are impugned here. There were widespread agitations against
framing of Rules, as the advocates apprehend that the High Court is taking
disciplinary control over the advocates from that of the Bar Council. In
fact, it is not.
4. The rules came to be framed because of the conferment of rule
making power, particularly in view of the directives of the Supreme Court
touching upon the malady of boycott. The boycotting of the Courts has
paralysed the administration of justice and the ultimate sufferers are the
litigants. The Madras High Court and the Subordinate Courts including the
Fast Track Courts had been progressing very well in the years 2002 and 2003.
But, because of the boycott now, the disposal rate has come down affecting the
litigants to a large extent. The advocates are fighting as if the Courts are
meant for them forgetting the fact that the Courts are mainly meant for the
litigants.
5. In this regard, the statement of the Honourable The Chief Justice
of India made on the inaugural function of Madurai Bench on 24.7.200 4 is
note-worthy but the advocates are not realising their responsibilities towards
the Courts and litigants. Situation has gone to such an extent that in the
precincts of Madras High Court, some advocates indulged in violence. The
situation was so worst on 10.8.2004. Some three advocates, who are said to be
n ot the practising advocates of this Court, were let in with dangerous
weapons in the hall of Madras High Court Advocates’ Association and two of
them have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The weapons have
been seized under a panchnama. One accused gave a slip and is at large.
Three advocates sustained grievous injuries and they have been hospitalised.
Totally, there are three complaints emanating from these incidents and they
have been registered for various offences including that of Sections 324 and
307 of Indian Penal Code as also Arms Act.
6. In addition to that, processions are being taken by a group of
advocates raising slogans in the corridors of the High Court premises. Women
lawyers, women staff of the High Court and even the senior lawyers are afraid
of the violence, as they have been terrorised. Large number of police force
has to be deployed to meet the situation and the situation is now near normal.
But, there cannot be any complacency. Steps have to be taken to see that the
situation shall not recur. Rules have been framed only pursuant to the
rule-making power including that of the directives of the Supreme Court
mentioned above. But the advocates are unrelenting.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the interests
of the smooth and effective administration of justice, we pass the following
order : i. A committee is constituted with the Presidents of Madras High
Court Advocates’ Association, Bar Federation of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry as
also Madras Bar Association, and the Chairman of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and
such number of sitting Judges as the Chief Justice may deem fit to nominate;
ii. The said committee shall go into the impugned rules and suggest such
modifications as may be necessary taking into consideration the need for
having a code of conduct within the rule making power under Section 34 of the
Advocates Act read with t aw laid down in HARISH UPPAL’s case (supra) without
encroaching upon the disciplinary power of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu;
iii. Till the above committee submits its report and final decision
is taken in that regard, the impugned rules framed and gazetted on 30 .7.2004
stand suspended;
iv. No advocate, by himself or in association with others, shall
undertake any boycott, fast, dharna, procession or indulge in violence or
slogan shouting in the campuses of Madras High Court, Madurai Bench of Madras
High Court and in all the Subordinate Courts throughout the State of Tamil
Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
v. In the case of violation of clause (iv) above, the advocate/s
shall be prevented from entering the campuses of the Courts mentioned supra
and for effectuating the same, the Register – General in the case of Principal
Bench and Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and in the case of the
Subordinate Courts, the Presiding Officers with the help of the concerned
police officials shall implement the decision of preventing the advocates from
indulging in any such activities mentioned in Clause (iv) above. vi.
The advocates so prevented shall not be entitled to enter the campuses of the
respective Courts until a written undertaking is filed not to indulge in the
above activities.
Learned Advocate General and learned Additional Solicitor General have
taken notice of this case and volunteered to render such assistance as this
Court may call upon them to do so.
8. Call these WPMPs after one month.
RS