MHAA to decide objectionable' amendments to rules today

Chennai: The Madras high court advocates’ association (MHAA) has decided to convene a general body meeting on Wednesday (June 1) to discuss the “objectionable” amendments to rules by the Madras high court recently.

The Madras high court has amended its 46-year-old statutory rules, paving the way for debarring from practice, advocates, who browbeat or abuse judges, lay siege to court halls, tamper with court records, appear in court under influence of alcohol, spread unsubstantiated allegations against judges or accept money either in the name of a judge or on the pretext of influencing him.

The amendment notified in the government gazette on May 20 provides for inserting as many as 4 proviso to Rule 14 of the rules framed by the high court on January 21, 1970 by exercising powers conferred on it under section 34 (1) of the Advocates Act.

The executive committee members led by MHAA president R.C.Paul Kanagaraj held a formal meeting on Tuesday at the association premises and decided to place the issue before the general body meeting for discussion.

According to Kanagaraj, though the high court has got powers to make rules, it cannot frame rules which will curtail freedom of practice. Objectionable amendments have been introduced in the rules now. The members feel the high court has no power to frame rules fixing penalty on advocates, he said.

He said the main issue on the agenda will be amendments, which seek to debar an advocate, who is found to have accepted money in the name of a judge or on the pretext of influencing him. “This amendment would pave the way for litigants to make false allegations against their counsel, if they fail to get positive results in their cases. Similarly, another amended rule says advocates found to have sent or spread unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations/petitions against a judicial officer or a judge to a superior court would be debarred. Allegations against judges may not have sufficient proof to substantiate and advocates could take complaints against judges only to the Chief Justice. Such allegations cannot be substantiated in writing and hence, on this basis, debarring an advocate is also a serious one”, Kanagaraj said.

He said yet another amendment was that an advocate who actively participates in a procession inside the court campus and/or involves in gherao or holds placards inside the court hall would have to face suspension/debar. If advocates have some grievances with regard to functioning of the judiciary, they can protest only inside the campus to bring it to the notice of the higher judiciary. Advocates cannot conduct agitation in public places. “As per the dictum of the Supreme Court, our protest will be a decent one without affecting the system of judicial administration”, he said.