Advocates should not indulge in boycotts for flimsy reasons since they are officers of the court, and their absence would affect the justice delivery system, Madras high court observed recently.
A division bench of justice S M Subramaniam and justice A D Maria Clete observed that lawyers are bound to protect the interest of the litigants and the majesty of the courts. Therefore, boycotting the courts frequently for flimsy reasons or based on certain individual grievances of any lawyer cannot be appreciated under any circumstance.
The court was hearing the petition filed by R Jim seeking a direction to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary action against the erring office bearers of the Tirunelveli Bar Association. The petitioner also alleged that the members of the association are involved in boycotts for flimsy reasons, causing inconvenience to the people who are longing to secure justice in the court of law.
The judges observed that the petitioner could not establish any wrongdoing against the office bearers of the association. In the absence of any specific complaint regarding misconduct or illegality committed by the office bearers, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry may not be in a position to initiate appropriate action. It is needless to state that a complaint must be specific.
The judges took note of the submission of the petitioner, who stated that he is willing to give a specific complaint against the lawyers who are indulged in such illegal activities or misconduct to the Bar Council. In the event of receiving any specific complaint from the petitioner against the office bearers of the association or any practising lawyers, the Bar Council shall initiate all appropriate actions, as contemplated under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Rules framed thereunder, including the Bar Council of India Rules, the judges directed and disposed of the petition.
