A day after the Bar Council of India placed 15 lawyers from the state under suspension for laying siege to courts and creating ruckus at the Madras high court, the lawyers said the Bar Council had erred in the decision by not issuing notice before suspending them.
BCI has suspended 15 advocates from three districts -Madurai, Sivaganga and Theni -and taken the action after it said the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry failed to act against the lawyers as per Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, for unruly behaviour and disturbing court proceedings.
Most of the suspended lawyers told TOI that the decision taken was “illegal“. To discuss the suspension and other related issues such as eviction of the Madurai District Bar Association from the district court premises, leaders of various Bar associations in the southern districts will hold a meeting in Trichy on Sunday . Also, the Madurai Bench High Courts Advocate Association has called for court boycott on Monday .
“Bar Council of India's list of suspended advocates contains names not involved in protests,“ said C M Arumugam, one of the suspended lawyers. Holding that no advocate has any right to stall court proceedings due to strike or boycott, the Madras high court has said clients of striking lawyers could move consumer disputes redressal forum for compensation if counsel fail to represent them in court due to boycott.
“It is always open to the litigants to claim damages and also to move the consumer forum for appropriate compensation and for damages that had caused to them by theirs Advocates by not representing the matters in courts,“ observed Justice S Vaidyanathan on Friday . No advocate has the right to abstain from court without first returning the briefs to his clients and refunding the fees received from them. It is well known that several clients are paying through their nose by borrowing heavily to pay their advocates and it is a matter of life and death for them, he said.
Courts below shall record the non-appearance of advocates due to boycott in listed case proceedings and proceed with the matters on merits, the judge said, adding: “After recording such nonappearance of the advocates, the courts below shall report it to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action and it would facilitate the litigants to pursue the matter with the Bar Council of India.“
Court boycotts obstruct the process intended to secure justice, the judge said, and added: “Nowadays, unfortunately , strikes, boycott calls and even unruly behaviour are becoming a frequent spectacle and boycotting of courts by advocates has become a regular feature in this state. Almost throughout the year, one section or the other of the Bar abstains from courts, thereby shatter ing this chartered high court's position.“
The judge was making the observations while permitting two businessmen to be represented by their counsel in a cheque bounce case.Reversing a magistrate court order insisting the personal presence of the businessmen, Justice Vaidyanathan said: “It is well settled that the process of courts should not be used for harassment of litigants, and the insistence on the appearance of the parties before the court need be only if it becomes absolutely necessary for some purpose.“
Accepting the reason furnished by the businessmen that they were required to make frequent travels abroad and could not attend all hearings, the judge said their absence would not hamper progress of the case, that too in a cheque bounce case where the main burden lay on the complainant. It is not at all necessary to insist on the presence of the accused for trial, except for compounding of the offence.
