Chennai: Upholding all actions of the State Bar Council and Bar Council of India BCI in issuing interim prohibitory orders, initiating disciplinary proceedings and transferring proceedings to Karnataka against lawyers for alleged misconduct, the Madras high court has directed State Bar Council to take a sympathetic view and revoke the interim prohibitory orders within one week, issued against advocates, without prejudice to pending disciplinary proceedings.
Pointing out that the petitioners (K Sathyabal, R.Y. George Williams, R. Prasadh, U. Rajarajan, L. Infant Dinesh, V. Kayalvizhi and A. Abdul Rahaman) fall under the category that those, the misconduct alleged against whom is somewhat palatable that the suffering already undergone by them is sufficient for revoking the interim suspension, a Division Bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and K. Ravichandrabaabu gave them relief and directed them to cooperate in the early disposal of disciplinary proceedings. Any attempt to protract proceedings may be viewed as an effort to take undue advantage of this order, the Bench cautioned.
Following a complaint from CISF personnel that the petitioners along with advocates Muthuramalingam and Antony indulged in unruly conduct, intimidation, obstruction and wrongful restraint of CISF personnel, destruction of public property and using unparliamentary and filthy language, the State Bar Council suspended them.
The bench said after BCI and the State Bar Council took action against a number of lawyers, some amount of discipline had been restored. One good thing that had turned out of the entire episode was that lawyers, who preferred to issue boycott calls at the drop of the hat, have chosen to take recourse to legal remedies, when it came to their own suspension from practice.
“If this wisdom had dawned upon them, when the disease afflicting the legal fraternity was at its initial stages, the same could have been cured with some bitter pills. Since it did not happen, the disease of boycotting courts and confronting the judiciary, reached its advanced stage, where surgical procedure alone became the only solution. We do not know if we are at a stage where amputation of some limbs is warranted. We know that the Bar Council is more equipped to assess the stage of the disease and decide (i) which are the cases where the suspended lawyers have already suffered enough, (ii) which are the cases requiring some more treatment and (iii) which are the cases where amputation may be necessary", the Bench added.
The Bench said the petitioners have filed affidavits, assuring that lawful functioning of CISF in the high court will not be disturbed by any act on their part, which may cause interference with the smooth functioning of the administration of justice. But, what tantamounts to lawful functioning of CISF and what does not, cannot be decided by petitioners.
“As of now, the very functioning of CISF in the high court is lawful , as it was allowed pursuant to orders of this court as confirmed by the SC. Therefore, neither the petitioners nor any other advocate can interfere with the functioning of the CISF in the HC”, the Bench said.
