Chennai: Stating that amending rules under section 34 (1) of Advocates Act by the Madras high court is timely and a much needed one, a former high court judge, K. Chandru, welcomed the move to initiate stern action against unruly advocates.
He said under the Act the power to take disciplinary action against practicing advocates was vested only with the Bar Council in states. Previously, the HC had the power to take disciplinary action against erring and misbehaving advocates. Section 34 of the Act enabled the HC to take action against advocates who misbehave in court.
The Madras High court had power to initiate action against lawyers only under contempt of court proceedings. However, in 2004 when advocates went on strike against high court for setting up of Madurai Bench, the HC formed a five-judge committee to frame rules under section 34 of the Act.
After advocates intensified their protest, the HC withdrew the rules. Thereafter in 2009 in R.K.Anand case Supreme Court directed all high courts to frame rules under the Advocates Act within two months.
Following a series of unpleasant incidents last year, the Madras High court had ordered CISF security on the campus and felt that it should frame rules by amending section 34-1 of the Act to take action against erring and misbehaving advocates.
By amending section 34-1 of the Advocates Act, the HC has not violated the law and the rules framed as per direction of the Supreme Court. The rules do not interfere with the powers of Bar Council.
Chandru pointed out that contempt proceedings is too technical. Though the then judge of Madras high court, S. Tamilvanan could have taken action against Madurai based advocate Peter Rameshkumar, who raised allegation against sitting HC judges, he referred the matter to Bar Council.
He said, “I feel rules are important and timely. Previously, HC depended on the Bar Council for taking action against erring advocates”. Now the HC is free to take action against the misbehaving advocates.
