Law Minister gets SC verdict wrong

Bhardwaj’s view runs contrary to the law laid down unanimously by a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court in December 2002 in Ex Capt Harish Uppal vs Union of India.

For, the judgment categorically states that under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, a high court is empowered ‘‘to frame rules inter alia to lay down conditions on which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in courts.’’

The Madras High Court notified a 25-point code of conduct under this very rule-making provision on July 30. But the rules that had been framed in the wake of one agitation (related to the creation of a bench in Madurai) ended up provoking another mainly because of the power assumed by the high court to suspend an errant lawyer upto one year.

Bhardwaj’s contention that the Bar Council alone can exercise disciplinary control over advocates betrays a confusion which has already been cleared by the Supreme Court in its 2002 judgment.

In an uncanny observation that seems to anticipate the current crisis in Chennai, Justice Variava said: ‘‘Let the bar take note that unless self restraint is exercised, courts may now have to consider framing specific rules debarring advocates, guilty of contempt and/or unprofessional or unbecoming conduct, from appearing before the courts. ‘‘Such a rule, if framed, would not have anything to do with the disciplinary jurisdiction of bar councils. It would be concerning the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts,’’ Justice Variava ruled.

The apex court went on to clarify that ‘‘the power to frame such rules should not be confused with the right to practice law. While the bar council can exercise control over the latter, the courts are in control of the former.’’

In other words, if Section 34 empowers high courts to lay down conditions on which an advocate shall be permitted to practice, Section 49 empowers the bar council to lay down conditions ‘‘subject to which an advocate shall have a right to practice.’’ A concurring judgment in the same case delivered by Justice M B Shah and Justice D M Dharmadhikari goes on to ‘‘direct that … under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, the High Court would frame necessary rules so that appropriate action can be taken against defaulting advocates.’’

Meanwhile, in Chennai, over 500 policemen are on the prowl of the Madras High Court complex, chambers of judges and advocates, the press room and premises of the lawyers’ association.

Only 12 hours ago, the court in its over 160-year history witnessed perhaps the worst-ever show of protest by the lawyers. As Justice Prabha Sreedevan was hearing the arguments of senior advocate, Sampath Kumar, a group of lawyers barged into the court hall, grabbed the advocate’s turban, abused him by his caste name and tore up his robe.

Then they barged into the court hall of Justice R Balasubramaniam and dragged out senior advocate, G Krishnamurthy, by tugging at his robe. All because the two lawyers had, along with a few hundred other colleagues, attended the Court in defiance of the protesting group’s boycott diktat.

The reason for their protest: Justice Reddy’s 25-point code of conduct for lawyers on the campus in the wake of their protest over grant of writ jurisdiction to the new Bench at Madurai.

Here is a sample of the code: Lawyers should not raise slogans or stage a dharna in the court. In the eyes of the Madras High Court Association (MHA) president, Prabhakaran, the code was ‘‘draconian’’.

‘‘If lawyers are not allowed to protest on the court campus, where else can we go and stage a dharna?’’ he asks. The code was ‘‘kept in abeyance’’ last week. And the MHA decided to suspend its Court boycott.

But the protests did not end there, as an ugly rivalry unfolded. A group of lawyers who had lost the MHA elections last year and opposed to the incumbent president, Prabhakaran, decided to continue with the boycott and went on a rampage.

Two lawyers suffered bleeding injuries, and a sickle, long knives and iron chains were recovered from the Court premises. A couple of days ago, a complaint box appeared on the premises, targeting the son of a Supreme Court Judge.

Strangely, the ‘‘kazhagam’’ politics of Tamil Nadu have also cast an ugly shadow over the High Court campus. The opposition DMK has chosen to defend the agitating section of lawyers with its president, M Karunanidhi saying: ‘‘The Centre can implement the easier of the two demands of the protesting lawyers—shift out the Chief Justice or withdrawal of writ jurisdiction for the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.’’