SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANSuo-Motu Cont.P.No.1592 of 2015High Court of Madras,Madras – 600 104.1.P.Dharmaraj Vs. … Petitioner2.A.K.Ramasamy3.All India Dr.B.R.AmbedkarAdvocate Association,Rep. by its President, … ContemnorsMr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy … Intervener/3rd Party[Intervener impleaded as per order of the Court dated 16.09.2015 made in Sub.A.No.775 of 2015 in Suo-Motu Contempt Petition No.1592 of 2015]Prayer: Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against the contemnors herein as per the order made in Office Note R.O.C.No.3596/2015-RG dated 16.07.2015.For Petitioner : Mr.V.VijayashankarFor 1st Contemnor : No appearanceFor 2nd ContemnorFor Intervener/ : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Ms.D.Nagasaila3rd Party : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal for Mr.S.RajagopalanORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)The genesis of this Suo-Motu Contempt

by ·

2024:MHC:2061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Suo-Motu Cont.P.No.1592 of 2015
High Court of Madras,
Madras – 600 104.
1.P.Dharmaraj Vs. … Petitioner
2.A.K.Ramasamy
3.All India Dr.B.R.Ambedkar
Advocate Association,
Rep. by its President, … Contemnors
Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy … Intervener/
3rd Party
[Intervener impleaded as per order of the Court dated 16.09.2015 made in Sub.A.No.775 of 2015 in Suo-Motu Contempt Petition No.1592 of 2015]
Prayer: Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against the contemnors herein as per the order made in Office Note R.O.C.No.3596/2015-RG dated 16.07.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayashankar
For 1st Contemnor : No appearance
For 2nd Contemnor
For Intervener/ : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Ms.D.Nagasaila
3rd Party : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal for Mr.S.Rajagopalan
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
The genesis of this Suo-Motu Contempt Petition commences from a letter of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, dated 03.07.2015, addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court, highlighting the resolutions passed by the Madurai Bar Association dated 02.07.2015, in a letter head signed by Mr.P.Dharmaraj and Mr.A.K.Ramasamy, claiming themselves to be the President and Secretary of the Madurai Bar Association respectively. The resolution touches upon a judicial order passed by N.Kirubakaran, J. (as he then was), mandating wearing of helmets by the two-wheeler riders in the State of Tamil Nadu. Some of the resolutions which are relevant to this case reads as follows:-
“1)…
2) We demanded the Tamil Nadu Government and the High Court Judge Kirubarakan to shoulder the responsibility for the death of a woman by name Kanchana on 01.07.2015 because of the accident she met with due to wearing helmet while going in a two wheeler, and to pay compensation of Rs.1 crore to her. 3) We condemn the action of unlawful gain by the Tamil
Nadu Government, High Court Judge Kirubakaran and Tamil Nadu Police Department by promoting the helmet sale to the tune of Rs.3000 crores and arranged for unlawful hue gain to the sellers.
4)…
5) We press the High Court Judge Kirubakaran to wear belt while travelling in car.
6)…
7) We press the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, all Government officials, all police officials and judges to wear belt while travelling in car. Likewise, they should wear helmets and travel with their family in two wheelers for one month and then to cancel the requirement of wearing helmets after realizing the difficulties involved.
8)…
9)…
10)…”

  1. The then Hon’ble Chief Justice had made a reference to a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by Mr.Justice S.Tamilvanan and Mr.Justice C.T.Selvam (as they then were), for initiation of suo-motu contempt proceedings.
  2. On being satisfied with the records before it, the Division Bench had issued statutory notice to the contemnors namely P.Dharmaraj and A.K.Ramasamy on 27.07.2015. On their appearance before the Division Bench on 24.08.2015, copies of the Contempt Petition were served on them. On 16.09.2015, the following questions were put to the second contemnor/A.K.Ramasamy (since the first contemnor/P.Dharmaraj was absent):-
    “1. Have you led or participated in the procession of Advocates from Madurai District campus to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court premises on 10.09.2015 ?
  3. Have you entered the premises of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 10.09.2015 ?
  4. Have you hold meeting immediately outside the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court premises on 10.09.2015 ?
  5. Have you distributed leaflets condemning and making allegations against Judges ?
  6. Have you been adjudged Insolvent, as per the order, dated 30.10.2006 made in I.P.No.71 of 2002 on the file of the Learned III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai ?
  7. As per the information received by the Registry, several criminal cases are pending against you and in many cases, charge sheets were filed against you. Is it true ?
  8. Is the communication in Page No.8 of the typed set furnished by the Intervening party addressed by you to other Associations?”
  9. On the request of the second contemnor/A.K.Ramasamy, the Suo-Motu Contempt Petition came to be adjourned for recording his answers to the aforesaid questions.
  10. On 16.09.2015, when it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that a procession was being organized by some Advocates from the Madurai District Court premises to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court premises, the Division Bench had called upon the Director General of Police, Chennai, to inquire and file a report on or before 30.09.2015. Contrary to such directions, Mr.H.M.Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, Welfare, Chennai, filed a Sub Application before the Division Bench for modification of paragraph 8 of the order dated 16.09.2015 and certain remarks made in the Sub Application was found as an act of disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench. These averments were made by Mr.H.M.Jayaram in the Sub Application No.809 of 2015 in Suo Motu Cont.P.No.1592 of 2015 in the following manner:-
    ……. “10. On the said facts and circumstances, it is seen that Mr.H.M.Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, Welfare, Chennai, has filed this Sub-Application against the Constitutional mandate and his affidavit reads thus :
    “4. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court without obtaining any threat assessment reports from the authorities concerned and without hearing this department has given direction to provide security to the said persons, which is against the principles of natural justice. This Hon’ble Court ought to have obtained the threat assessment reports or ought to have heard this department before passing such order.
  11. It is submitted that this is a case of Suo-Motu
    Contempt proceedings initiated by this Hon’ble Court, the reason for allowing the impleading petition filed by the 3rd party, i.e., Tr.Dalit Tiger Ponnusamy and Tr.S.R.Rajagopalan is not proper. Moreover, as per the threat assessment reports, there has been no threat perception to them and also to Tr.K.Arumugam.
  12. It is submitted that there are many factions / groups among the advocates. In such circumstances, providing armed escort and security to one group and not to others will further escalate the situation and is fraught with dangers. Such thing will lead to serious consequences and it will also create a bad precedent. There may be more such requests from other advocates for providing personal security and it will not be possible to provide 7 security to all such people as our resources are primarily meant to look after law and order matters. Moreover, PSOs with weapons for private persons in High Court premises is not very comfortable state of affairs. Therefore, it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to modify / delete para 8 of the order, dated
    16.09.2015.””
  13. In this context, notice came to be issued to Mr.H.M.Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, Welfare, Mylapore, Chennai, calling upon him as to why appropriate action should not be taken for disobeying the order of the Division Bench.
  14. On 06.10.2015, the Division Bench had accepted the
    unconditional apology tendered by Mr.H.M.Jayaram, as well as the regret expressed by him and thereby, closed the Sub Application without any adverse remarks against the Police Officer.
  15. During the pendency of this Suo-Motu Contempt Petition, S.Tamilvanan, J., had recused himself from the Division Bench and accordingly, the Suo-Motu Contempt Petition came to be taken up by another Co-ordinate Bench presided over by R.Sudhakar, J. and P.N.Prakash, J. (as they then were).
  16. On 11.12.2015, the following charges came to be framed against both the contemnors under Section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act:-
  17. The relevant documents relating to the Suo-motu Contempt Petition were also served on both the contemnors. On 08.01.2016, certain questions were put to P.Dharmaraj/1st contemnor, touching upon his involvement in the subject matter of this contempt proceedings. Incidentally, A.K.Ramasamy/2nd contemnor was already questioned in the same manner. Both the contemnors had denied their direct involvement.
  18. P.Dharmaraj/1st contemnor had filed an affidavit of apology dated 07.01.2016, denying the charges, as well as by stating that he had only acted in his capacity, as a President of the Bar Association and tendered his apologies.
  19. Likewise, A.K.Ramasamy/2nd contemnor, had also filed an affidavit on 22.01.2016, denying the charges and offering his unconditional apologies on any unintentional act that he might have caused attracting contempt of the Court proceedings.
  20. The Suo-Motu Contempt Petition has now been listed before this Bench.
  21. The fact that Madurai Bar Association had passed a resolution on 02.07.2015, condemning the judicial order passed by Mr.Justice N.Kirubakaran (as he then was), for mandating wearing of helmets by the riders of the two-wheelers and the consequential procession by the Advocates from Madurai District Court Campus to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 10.09.2015, are not under dispute. Likewise, distribution of leaflets, condemning and making allegations against the Judges, are also not disputed by the contemnors.
  22. The explanations rendered by both the contemnors to the charges levelled against them are that, they had only acted in their capacities as the Office Bearers of the Bar Association and that the majority view of the members of the Association were passed by way of resolution with regard to the incidents of procession etc. They have also attempted to explain that apart from them, there were several other lawyers who had joined the agitation and they should not be singled out for the contemptuous act. However, without prejudice to the
    explanations, they have also tendered their unconditional apology.
  23. 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.
  24. We deem it unnecessary to point out to the learned members of the Bar Association about the effective alternate remedy available to them against an order of the Court, if it is found to be unacceptable or unimplementable.
  25. 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.
  26. In the case of ‘Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & another’ reported in ‘(2003) 2 SCC 45’, it was held thus:-
    21…….
    ““Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts. ‘In my submission’, he said that ‘it is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Courts make it clear beyond doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from any body or authority in the daily administration of justice. For in no other way can the Supreme Court and the High Courts maintain the high position and exercise the great powers conferred by the Constitution and the law to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
  27. It was expected that having known the well-settled law and having seen that repeated strikes and boycotts have shaken the confidence of the public in the legal profession and affected administration of justice, there would be selfregulation. The abovementioned interim order was passed in the hope that with self-restraint and self-regulation the lawyers would retrieve their profession from lost social respect. The hope has not fructified. Unfortunately strikes and boycott calls are becoming a frequent spectacle. Strikes, boycott calls and even unruly and unbecoming conduct are becoming a frequent spectacle. On the slightest pretence strikes and/or boycott calls are resorted to. The judicial system is being held to ransom. Administration of law and justice is threatened. The rule of law is undermined.”
  28. In the case of ‘R.Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras’ reported in ‘(2019) 16 SCC 407’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had commented on the role of the Bar in the legal system to be a significant one. It was held therein that the Bar is supposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary, as Judges do not speak. People listen to the great lawyers and people are inspired by their thoughts. They are remembered and quoted with reverence. It is the duty of the Bar to protect honest judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same time, to ensure that corrupt judges are not spared. It was further held that however, lawyers cannot go to the streets or go on strike except when democracy itself is in danger and the entire judicial system is at stake.
  29. In Harish Uppal’s case (supra), it was also held that the lawyers have no right to go on strike or any other similar coercive action and also pointed out the duties of the President of the Bar Association, when confronted with issues that may be to the dis-satisfaction of the Bar members, in the following manner:-
    “35. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour armbands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before advocates decide to absent themselves from court.”
  30. Even as individuals, every member of the Bar owe certain responsibilities. While appraising the sanctity of the legal profession in the case of ‘Sudha Vs. President, Advocates Association, Chennai and others’ reported in ‘(2010) 14 SCC 114’, it was held thus:-
    ….. “40. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification prescribed by different universities, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as an intelligent citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The different Associations of the members of the Bar are being formed to show the strength of lawyers in case of necessity. The lawyer while exercising vote in an election of office-bearers of the Association must conduct himself in an exemplary manner. Those who are concerned about the high standard of the profession are supposed to take appropriate action to see that the election takes place peacefully and in an organised manner……”
  31. A similar view has also been expressed in R.Muthukrishnan’s case (supra), in the following manner:-
    …… “25. The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain the high standard. His duty is to the court, to his own client, to the opposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party counsel also.
    What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to a respected intellectual class of the society and a member of the noble profession, the expectation from him is higher. Advocates are treated with respect in society. People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information. They put their signatures wherever asked by a lawyer. An advocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted justice is delivered to his cause.
  32. The high values of the noble profession have to be protected by all concerned at all costs and in all the circumstances cannot be forgotten even by the youngsters in the fight of survival in formative years. The nobility of the legal profession requires an advocate to remember that he is not over attached to any case as advocate does not win or lose a case, real recipient of justice is behind the curtain, who is at the receiving end. As a matter of fact, we do not give to a litigant anything except recognising his rights. A litigant has a right to be impartially advised by a lawyer. Advocates are not supposed to be money guzzlers or ambulance chasers. A lawyer should not expect any favour from the Judge and should not involve by any means in influencing the fair decision-making process. It is his duty to master the facts and the law and submit the same precisely in the court, his duty is not to waste the courts’ time.
  33. It is said by Alexander Cockburn that “the weapon of the advocate is the sword of a soldier, not the dagger of the assassin”. It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favour from a Judge. He must rely on the precedents, read them carefully and avoid corruption and collusion of any kind, not to make false pleadings and avoid twisting of facts. In a profession, everything cannot be said to be fair even in the struggle for survival. The ethical standard is uncompromisable. Honesty, dedication and hard work is the only source towards perfection. An advocate’s conduct is supposed to be exemplary. In case an advocate causes disrepute of the Judges or his colleagues or involves himself in misconduct, that is the most sinister and damaging act which can be done to the entire legal system. Such a person is definitely deadwood and deserves to be chopped off.”
  34. In all these decisions referred to above, references have been made to the earlier decisions wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure on the conduct of the Bar Association and lawyers in resorting to concerted and coercive action by them. In spite of all the precedents, the members of the Madurai Bar Association, including the contemnors herein, have totally disregarded these well established precedents and had attempted to take the law on their own hands.
  35. In the instant Suo-Motu Contempt Petition, the earlier Coordinate Benches of this Court, have recorded the conduct of the contemnors in becoming responsible for the illegal action on their part, through several interim orders. We endorse such views of the preceding Benches, disapproving the action of the members of the Bar, in having participated in the procession of Advocates from the Madurai District Court Campus to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 10.09.2015, entering the premises of Madurai Bench on the same day, holding of meetings inside the premises and distributing leaflets, condemning and making allegations against the Judges.
  36. With regard to the involvement of the contemnors are concerned, though it cannot be ruled out that both of them were party to the concerted action, it would not be appropriate to isolate these two lawyers alone and proceed with further action. We would hasten to add here that we are not condoning their involvement in the contemptuous acts.
  37. In their affidavits filed before us in the Suo-Motu Contempt Petition, though both of them have denied the charges levelled against them and have rendered certain explanations, we have taken note of the unconditional apologies tendered by them. Both the contemnors, who are more than 70 years of age, have also expressed the respect they have for the judiciary.
  38. P.Dharmaraj/1st contemnor, would state in his affidavit dated
    22.01.2016 as follows:-
    “4. I respectfully state that this Hon’ble Court may take note of the fact that now I am aged about 66 years. I have been the Region Chairman in the Lion’s Club International. I have been the Secretary of Government aided Higher Secondary School at Nagamalaipudukkottai, Madurai for 10 years. I am presently the President of Kamarajar Aranilayam, a Charitable Organization. To tell the truth I have been more associated with social service of late. Only after becoming Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government, I have been attending High Court.
    My practice has been confined to the District and Sessions Court, Sub Court, the Munsif Court and Magistrate Courts.
    I can confidently state that not even a single Presiding Officer will ever say that I adopted even a rude approach. I have won their affection and respect by affection and respect by a clean conduct spread over four decades. I believe and now realize that I was in error but it was out of a bonafide but mistaken idea as regard my role as President of the Association.”
  39. Likewise, A.K.Ramasamy/2nd contemnor, in his affidavit dated
    07.01.2016 has stated thus:-
    “6. I state that I request this Hon’ble Court to take into account the totality of the circumstances and to accept the explanation and drop the contempt proceedings against me. I have the greatest respect for the Judiciary and never intended to undermine the institution in any manner or lower its dignity or scandalise the judiciary or interfere in the course of justice. I once again offer my unconditional apology if I have unintentionally given any impression to the contrary.
  40. I have put in 40 years of practice and have always acted in a responsible manner. I request this Hon’ble Court to accept my explanation and my unconditional apology and drop the contempt proceedings against me.”
  41. In consideration of the fact that several other lawyers had admittedly participated in the agitation and by accepting the unconditional apologies rendered by both the contemnors, namely P.Dharmaraj and A.K.Ramasamy, no further action is required against them.
  42. Accordingly, this Suo-Motu Contempt Petition stands closed.
    [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
    16.04.2024
    Index:Yes
    Speaking order
    Neutral Citation:Yes
    Sni 
    M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
    Sni
    Suo Motu Cont.P.No.1592 of 2015
    16.04.2024

You may also like...