TN advocates are at it again
With great difficulty Chief Justice R K Agrawal and Chief Justice S K Kaul brought some discipline and order in administering the Madras High Court. Sadly, the advocates had reverted to their familiar and old habits of staying off courts, disrupting court proceedings. This time the reason is to protest the transfer of Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court. The advocates demand the Supreme Court collegium rescinding the transfer order and Justice Tahilramani withdrawing her letter of resignation.
The advocates had been a law unto themselves indulging in agitations, strikes and other unruly actions that used to result in disrupting court proceedings for days. Already our courts have been burdened with humongous load of cases that get piled upon. The occasional efforts made by a few judges to clear pending cases were thwarted by lack of involvement of the advocates who ask for endless adjournments.
The basic malaise relates to a disproportionately large number of advocates registered to practice with poor preparations and knowledge. Of these, hardly a small fraction has enough briefs for flourishing practice. The unemployed and under-employed, divided by political, caste and other affiliations, do not lose overmuch by any work stoppages. Things reached their nadir on 9 February 2009 when the lawyers indulged in a pitched battle with the police. The police station inside the court premises was torched. The antagonistic relationship between the lawyers and the police still simmers. Attempts were made subsequently to implement the Justice Sri Krishna Commissions’ recommendations post the February 2009 incidents were thwarted.
The Commission recommended the Supreme Court to “take this opportunity to exercise its extraordinary constitutional powers and lay down sufficient guidelines for the behaviour of the lawyers within and without the court premises as the bar councils have not been acting as an active regulatory body of their professional conduct.”
It is not just confined to the lawyers. Even judges have indulged in such unbecoming actions. Chief Justice of Madras High Court, R K Agrawal, complained to the Supreme Court that a judge barged into his chambers and hurled a volley of invectives at him.
There was a more shocking display of different sections of lawyers defying the rules of the court. Lawyers in Madurai dared the administration by protesting the judgment to wear helmets and in great numbers rode motorcycles without wearing helmets. When an action was sought to be taken against these, they landed at the MHC, marched into the chief justice’s chamber, shouting slogans.
Here is the parting shot of Chief Justice Agrawal at the time of demitting office following his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court: “many of my colleagues here have privately expressed their desire to see voluntary transfer to other high courts. My colleagues from other high courts are hesitant to come to this court,” he said.
He also referred to the women members of the bar being in the forefront of the unfortunate events.
“It takes years to build a reputation and only a moment to destroy it. We have to be very careful in our conduct,” Agrawal cautioned.
Things improved a lot during the tenure of S K Kaul as Chief Justice. Most important among these was the one to beef up security. He ordered handing over security to the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) that took charge of the high court premises. Even though this was also resisted, he stood his guns. A lot more of peace and order inside the court premises were reinstated.
There had been some peace and orderliness over the last three years. Sections of advocates must be finding Chief Justice Tahilramani much softer and feel more comfortable reverting to their old, unruly ways.
Woman member of the Bar Council, Priscilla Pandian, is of the opinion that the SC collegium’s decision (to transfer the Chief Justice of MHC) should not be questioned casually, as it is the highest body to take decisions on such issues, which cannot be questioned.
Co-Chairman of Bar Council of India, S Prabhakaran, said, “ suitability cannot be questioned either through judicial review or court boycotts and this is trite law… BCI being the highest statutory and regulatory body, it does not comment upon the collegium’s decision and will not interfere in the issue.”
For a change the lawyers should look at the misery of the litigant in battling with their cases at high cost for years. They should cooperate with the judges to complete cases in short, time-bound litigation.
