Bar Associations Not Trade Unions, Can't Dictate Who Should Be Represented: Madras High Court Criticises Practice Of “Collective Boycotts”

The Madras High Court has come down heavily on bar associations engaging in collective boycotts and preventing a party from being represented in the court. Justice B Pugalendhi emphasised that the Bar Associations or any collective of lawyers did not have any moral or legal authority to dictate who may or may not be defended in a court of law. The court stressed that the right to be represented before a court of law was not a privilege but a constitutional guarantee and any action preventing the same would strike at the very root of rule of law. “Let it be made emphatically clear — no Bar Association, nor any collective of lawyers, has any authority, moral or legal, to dictate who may or may not be defended before a Court of law. The right to legal representation is not a matter of professional favour but a constitutional guarantee. Such actions of prevention, whether by formal resolution or informal pressure, strike at the very root of the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees of fair trial and legal representation. The Bar, as an institution integral to the administration of justice, must uphold these values with unwavering commitment,” the court said. The court observed that it cannot turn a blind eye when the right to a fair trial is being compromised under the pretext of professional unity. The court reiterated that the bar was not a trade union and any attempt to convert it into a pressure group would be contempt of the rule of law. “This Court cannot turn a blind eye when the right to a fair trial is being compromised under the pretext of professional unity. It is to be reminded that the Bar is not a trade union; it is an institution of constitutional significance. Any attempt to convert it into a pressure group that dictates who may or may not be represented before a Court of law is nothing short of contempt for the rule of law,” the court observed. The court was hearing petitions raising allegations regarding the conduct of members of the Nagercoil Bar Association, denying effective legal representation. In the first petition, the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant was the Vice President of the Nagercoil Bar Association and that the advocates practising at Nagercoil were unwilling to appear for him. In the second petition, it was submitted that the de facto complainant was an advocate practising in Padmanabhapuram and there was an understanding between the lawyers not to represent him. In both cases, the Nagercoil Bar Association entered an appearance and denied having passed any resolution or circular preventing members from appearing for the accused persons. In the third and fourth petitions, a woman had submitted that she was a tenant of one Suresh, and his cousin Rajesh, who was holding the power of attorney was attempting to forcibly evict her from the property with the help of around 50 advocates who trespassed into the property and ransacked it. She further informed that though she had filed a complaint, the police did not act on it and instead registered a case against her based on a belated complaint filed by Rajesh. Though a report was called from the Superintendent of Police, the court noted that it was wholly unsatisfactory and did not explain why the woman's complaint was not acted upon. The court observed that the conduct of the police reflected bias and abdication of duty. The court also opined that there was prima facie collusion between the complainant and some members of the local bar. With respect to the first two cases, the court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari, to personally monitor the conduct of trial. The court also asked the trial court to ensure that the accused are provided effective legal representation of their choice and that no advocate is subjected to intimidation or pressure for appearing on their behalf. The court added that if any advocate or bar association was found to interfere, it should be reported to the court and the Bar Council of TN and Puducherry for disciplinary action. With respect to the third and fourth cases, the court transferred the investigation to the CB CID, Kanyakumari District. The court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct an independent, comprehensive and time-bound investigation not just regarding the incident but also into the conduct of the police in not acting upon the woman's complaint. During the course of the hearing, the court also commented that such allegations against the Nagercoil Bar Association were not novel and since 2010, there have been allegations regarding a resolution passed by the association preventing representation for certain accused. The court noted that such allegations indicate a disturbing pattern of professional indiscipline which diminished the Bar's standing. Highlighting on the constitutional guarantees of effective...

Bar Associations Not Trade Unions, Can't Dictate Who Should Be Represented: Madras High Court Criticises Practice Of “Collective Boycotts”

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bar Associations Not Trade Unions, Can't Dictate Who Should Be Represented: Madras High Court Criticises Practice Of “Collective Boycotts”

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers