The Madras High Court has dismissed petitions filed by a group of lawyers seeking quashing of proceedings brought against them by a Madurai judge for alleged court misconduct, saying the law gives courts “immediate powers to protect the institution” when something disrupts or undermines the proceedings.
In an order issued on April 30, Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai High Court stressed the need to maintain discipline. Judge Jori said that the proceedings raised issues of institutional importance relating to the relationship between the Bar Association and the Authority which did not require any intervention.
The lawyers, including office bearers and members of the local Bar Association, challenged the show cause notices issued to them by the Magistrate Court and the order refusing to represent them through counsel and insisting that they appear in person.
On January 19, a lawyer filed a petition in the magistrate court alleging the illegal detention of his client. The judge adjourned the matter for hearing the next morning. Before the hearing, the police brought the client into pretrial detention. During the remand proceedings, lawyers, including the petitioners, allegedly entered the courtroom, halted the proceedings and insisted that the court should not proceed with remand.
The judge, a defendant in the case before the Supreme Court, said the situation forced her to halt the proceedings. It claimed that the group tried to influence the judicial decision and disrupt the work of the court. She said that the behavior of members of the Bar Association constituted a crime of “deliberate insult” to the institution of the judiciary. Hence, it issued show-cause notices.
The lawyers said that the accusations were vague and did not reveal any crime. They alleged that the judge failed to take cognizance before the court convened on the same day and acted biasedly.
The judge said the matter could not be resolved through an informal settlement. She said that because the matter happened in open court, it required a judicial decision to address the institutional harms. The judge called on the Supreme Court to “preserve the dignity and authority of the judiciary.”
Judge Jori agreed and declined to intervene. The court noted that the impugned petitions only include show cause notices and that lawyers can present their defense before the judge. It held that the allegations, if taken seriously, could constitute a crime and that the disputed factual issues could not be examined in annulment proceedings.
The court framed the case as one of institutional importance. She wondered to what extent lawyers could interfere in the proceedings and whether the alleged obstruction in court could be stopped initially through normal authorities.
“While a lawyer has the right to be courageous, he has never the right to be dogmatic. While he may be firm, he cannot be arrogant. While he may criticize, he cannot insult. While he may persuade, he cannot pressure. While he may protect the rights of his client, he cannot obstruct the course of justice,” the Supreme Court said.
She stressed that the Bar Association and the judiciary are partners in the administration of justice and must maintain mutual respect and discipline. The court said that lawyers remain employees of the court and must preserve its dignity.
The Supreme Court upheld the judge’s conduct. She said she acted decisively and independently in a fraught situation and supported the authority of the institution.
