“Advocate May Persuade, But Not Pressurize”: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Misconduct Proceedings Against Madurai Lawyers

Noting that there was no justification to quash the proceedings, Justice Victoria Gowri highlighted the importance of respect between the bar and the bench. The court remarked that the dignity of one sustains the honour of the other. The court thus highlighted that the law expected both to remain within their constitutional and professional discipline.

“An advocate is not a mere agent of the litigant. He is an officer of the Court. The Court, in turn, is not an adversary of the Bar. The dignity of one sustains the honour of the other. If the Bar fails in restraint, the institution suffers; if the Bench fails in fairness, the institution suffers equally. The law, therefore, expects both to remain within their constitutional and professional discipline,” the court said.

It added, "while an advocate is entitled to be fearless, he is never entitled to be intemperate; while he may be firm, he cannot be overbearing; while he may criticize, he cannot insult; while he may persuade, he cannot pressure; and while he may protect the rights of the client, he cannot obstruct the course of justice."

The court also recorded appreciation for the young judicial officer for choosing to uphold the majesty of the law and the dignity of the judicial office, though attempts were made to compromise the institutional authority.

“Her steadfast adherence to duty, marked by independence of mind and clarity of purpose, reflects the finest traditions of the judiciary acting without fear or favour, affection or ill will. In an era where the resilience of institutions is often tested, it is officers of such character who reinforce the very foundations of the justice delivery system,” the court remarked.

The court further appreciated the judge for retreating into silence when faced with a charged atmosphere but for acting with resolute determination to uphold the dignity and authority of the institution. Quoting the words of Margaret Thatcher, the court said, “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.”

“Faced with a charged atmosphere and competing pressures, she did not yield to expediency, nor retreat into silence, but acted with resolute determination to uphold the dignity and authority of the institution she represents. What may be perceived by some as stubbornness, this Court views as principled firmness, an essential attribute in the discharge of judicial duty,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas filed by advocates challenging the proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate and the subsequent show cause notice issued to them. The issue stems from an incident that happened on January 19 this year in the Judicial Magistrate's court. It was submitted that on January 19, at 6:05 pm, after the court rose for the day, one Advocate presented a petition under Section 100 of the BNSS alleging that his client was being wrongfully detained by the police.

As per the Magistrate, she had directed the Station House Officer to appear before her on the next date and asked the matter to be listed as first case on the next day. However, on the next day, i.e., on January 20, when the matter was called, neither the counsel nor the client was present and the matter was passed over. After this, the police produced a remand requisition, for the same person who was allegedly detained.

At that time, several advocates present in the court intervened in the proceeding and disrupted the court. Noting that an offence under Section 267 BNS has been made, the Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and proceeded accordingly.

The petitioners challenged the show cause notice on the ground that it was issued on the next date, when the law (Section 384 BNSS) mandates that cognisance should be taken before the rising of the court on the same day. The petitioners also challenged the act of Magistrate taking cognisance of the offence after the court working hours.

The petitioners also took objection to the Magistrate's use of word “offenders” in the diary proceedings and submitted that it demonstrated a clear predetermination of guilt.

The Magistrate, on the other hand, submitted a detailed response. She argued that the petitioners were premature since the issuance of show cause notice did not affect the rights of the parties. The Magistrate also submitted that the jurisdiction was validly exercised under Section 384 of BNSS. She submitted that the expression used in the statute is “before rising of the court” and not “within court hours”. It was submitted that cognisance was taken at 6:30, before the court rose for the day. It was further submitted that mere fact of issuing show cause notice on the next day would not vitiate the entire proceedings.

The court agreed with the Magistrate and noted that the cognisance was taken before rising of the court. The court noted that the provision requires cognisance to be taken on the same day and a reasonable opportunity to be given for showing cause.

Though the court noted that the terminology used by the court, in referring to the petitioners as offenders, was stronger that usual, the court said that the same would not be a ground for quashing the proceedings and the petitioners could raise their points at the time of hearing. The court made it clear that its extraordinary jurisdiction could not be used to micro-manage the procedural incidents of an ongoing summary proceedings, unless manifest illegality of a grave order was shown.

Noting that there was nothing to show manifest illegality in the present case, the court was not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the case.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior counsel, For Mr.C.M.Arumugam, Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, For M/s. Dhana Law Associates Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravindha Balaji, Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, Mr.D.Selvam, For C.M.Arumugam, Mr.A.S.Vaigunth,

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.D.Sivaraman

Case Title: S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201

Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026