Madras High Court orders criminal, disciplinary, and contempt proceedings against lawyer for abusing, threatening judges

The Hindu

23-06-2025

The Madras High Court has directed the Arakkonam police in Ranipet district, Tamil Nadu, to initiate criminal action against an advocate for having prevented the police from from executing a non-bailable arrest warrant (NBW) issued by the court against his clients and producing them before the court.
Justice P.T. Asha also referred the issue to a Division Bench for initiating suo motu criminal contempt of court proceedings against the advocate, R. Balasubramanian, as he had obstructed the administration of justice by preventing the police from executing a warrant issued by the court.
Further, the judge directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) to initiate appropriate action against the advocate by taking note of his deplorable conduct, which included abuses and curses hurled at the judges of the High Court as well as a district munsif, both orally and in writing.
The entire dispute began with a petition filed jointly by three individuals, S. Krishnaveni, M. Markandan and E. Subramani of Arakkonam, for transferring a civil suit, related to a property dispute pending before the Sholinghur district munsif court in Ranipet district, to any civil court in Chennai.
On perusing an affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition, Justice Asha found that it contained scandalous and defamatory remarks against the judges of the High Court and the district munsif. Further, the transfer petitioners had described the counsel for the opponent as a 'fraud and rogue'.
When the judge wondered how such an affidavit could be filed in court, Mr. Balasubramanian, with 47 years of practice at the Bar, turned vituperative and raised his voice to bully the court. Thereafter, the judge initiated suo motu contempt against the three petitioners and directed them to appear before the court.
Since they did not appear on June 4, 2025, the judge issued an NBW with a direction to the police to produce them in the court on June 18, 2025. Additional Public Prosecutor S. Sugendran informed the court that though the contemnors had been brought to the court premises, their lawyer was not letting them step into the court building.
The APP said the lawyer had taken away the petitioners' Aadhaar cards to prevent the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) from checking their identity before letting them into the court building. Then, Mr. Balasubramanian entered the court hall and intimidated Justice Asha.
He told the judge he would lodge a complaint against her with the Chief Justice and insisted that she should recuse herself from the case. He also used unparliamentary words in the court hall and threatened the judge that he would destroy her if she takes any kind of action against him.
Observing that his conduct clearly amounts to criminal contempt, Justice Asha referred the issue to a Division Bench holding the criminal contempt portfolio. Subsequently, when the three petitioners were produced before the court on June 20, 2025, the judge recorded their statements.
All the three petitioners told the court they had not instructed Mr. Balasubramanian to file any transfer petition and they had merely affixed their thumb impressions and signatures on the affidavit written in English without even understanding what exactly was written on it. They were interested only in their property.
'From the above, it is clear that the contents of the affidavit are also a script prepared by the counsel which makes it all the more shocking to this court, considering the language that has been used not only against the judicial officer but also against the judges of this court,' Justice Asha said.
Expressing dismay over a member of the noble profession of law having brought discredit to it by his conduct, the judge directed the High Court Registry to forward her order, along with the CCTV footage of the lawyer's conduct inside the court hall, to the BCTNP for necessary action.
However, since the three petitioners had no knowledge about the contents of the affidavit and they had also tendered an unconditional apology before the court, the judge purged them from the contempt proceedings.