Frequent court boycotts by lawyers for flimsy reasons to be deprecated: Madras HC
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that the Supreme Court had repeatedly reiterated that lawyers could not indulge in boycotting the courts for flimsy reasons and in such an event, strong actions were directed to be initiated by the competent authorities. That apart, boycotts might not be a proper solution.
Only in the event of any common cause, the lawyers had to approach the Bar Council or the competent authorities to redress their grievances. Contrarily, they were not expected to resort to boycotts unnecessarily, thereby obstructing the court proceedings, the court observed.
Lawyers were officers of the court. They were the stakeholders in the justice delivery system. Their absence would affect court proceedings. The courts would not be in a position to hear and dispose of cases in the absence of the lawyers. Their assistance to the court was of paramount importance in the justice delivery system, the Bench observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by R. Jim who complained that for flimsy reasons boycotts were announced by the Tirunelveli Bar Association which caused inconvenience to the public and some lawyers who were willing to appear before the courts.
The petitioner sought a direction to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the association office-bearers. The court observed that in the absence of a specific complaint regarding misconduct or illegality committed by the office-bearers, the Bar Council might not be in a position to initiate appropriate action.
In the event of receiving a specific complaint from the petitioner against the office-bearers of the Bar Association or any practising lawyers, the Bar Council should initiate appropriate actions, as contemplated under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Rules, including the Bar Council of India Rules, the court directed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Disabled people entitled to due representation in elected boards'
Chennai: Madras high court has said persons with disabilities (PwDs)are entitled to due representation in every walk of life, including in the elected boards of statutory bodies such as the Bar Council and Medical Council. "It is only just and proper that apart from finding a place in educational institutions and in employment, disabled persons also find a place in the elected bodies," Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said. The court made the observations while clarifying that the high court, though being a constitutional court, cannot issue any writ of mandamus unless the petitioner shows the existence of any legal right. However, the court added that it can certainly nudge the authorities to take appropriate steps in that direction. The issue pertains to a plea moved by advocate B Rameshbabu, pointing out that there was no representation of PwDs in various statutory bodies such as Bar Council of India, National Medical Council, Dental Council of India, and Pharmacy Council of India. The petitioner said despite the mandates for the govt provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act to identify suitable posts in various govt establishments, no identification and nomination were done by the state. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Nejpohodlnější farmářská hra. Instalace není potřeba Taonga Farm Přehrát nyní Undo Recording the submissions, the bench said, "The Act states that the chief commissioner for persons with disabilities shall promote awareness of the rights of PwDs and safeguards available for their protection." Now that we have brought it to the notice of the authorities that disabled persons have not given due representation, we direct the authorities to undertake appropriate steps in this regard, the court said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of right to privacy: Madras HC
The Madras High Court declared telephone tapping a privacy violation. Justice Venkatesh cited Article 21 of the Constitution. He referenced the Telegraph Act's Section 5(2). The court quashed a Union government order authorizing the tapping of P Kishore's phone. This case involved bribery allegations. The judge noted violations of Telegraph Rules. Intercepted conversations cannot be used as evidence. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh also observed that the right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the judge said section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety. Both these contingencies were not secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable laid down in paragraph 28 of the decision of the Apex court in People's Union for Civil Liberties, it was only when the above two situations exist that the authority may pass an order directing interception of messages after recording its satisfaction that it was necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, he a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited, the judge quashed an order of the union government, which authorised tapping of the mobile phone of the petitioner, in connection with a case relating to bribery and corruption, probed by the CBI, involving an Assistant Commissioner of Income judge said in the instant case, the impugned order dated August 12, 2011 does not fall either within the rubric of "public emergency" or "in the interests of public safety" as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties, which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the SC in K S Puttaswamy case, the judge judge said the authorities have also contravened Rule 419-A(17) of the Telegraph Rules by failing to place the intercepted material before the Review Committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2) of the a consequence, the impugned order must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction. Besides violating Article 21, it was also ultra vires Section 5(2) of the Act besides being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the judge judge said it follows that the intercepted conversations collected pursuant to the impugned order in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A(17) of the Rules shall not be used for any purposes judge said it was, however, made clear that the above direction shall have no bearing on the other material that has been collected by the CBI subsequent to and independent of the intercepted call records, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Violates Right To Privacy': Madras High Court Quashes MHA's 2011 Phone Tapping Order
Last Updated: The court quashed the phone tapping order, stating it violated the right to privacy as protected under the Constitution The Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that telephone tapping cannot be carried out as part of covert operations aimed at detecting crime, stating such actions are not permitted under existing law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that the law allows phone interception only in cases of public emergency or when public safety is at risk. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education, who was named in a 2011 corruption case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with an Income Tax officer, Andasu Ravinder. According to the CBI, Ravinder demanded a bribe from Kishore, who allegedly paid him Rs 50 lakh. Based on this, the Union Home Ministry issued an order in August 2011 to tap Kishore's mobile phone. Kishore later challenged this order in court. Court Quashes MHA Order The court quashed the phone tapping order, stating it violated the right to privacy as protected under the Constitution, unless authorised under due legal process. The Home Ministry had invoked Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act to justify the interception. However, the court observed that Section 5(2) permits phone tapping only during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, and only after authorities are satisfied that it is necessary in matters such as national security or public order. 'In this case, the interception was part of a covert operation to detect a crime, which does not fall under the scope of Section 5(2)," the court said. Justice Venkatesh also cited a 1996 Supreme Court judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, which set guidelines for phone tapping, and the 2017 Puttaswamy verdict, which upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The court further noted that Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules was not followed, as the intercepted material was not placed before the review committee in a timely manner. 'As a consequence… the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction," the judge concluded. First Published:
