Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.9.2008 C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR.A.K.GANGULY, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAW.P.No.33028 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007S.A.Miyajan ... Petitioner -vs-1. The State of Tamil nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

The Bar Council of Tamil nadu, rep. by its Secretary, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104.

The Madras High Court Advocates' Association, rep.by its Secretary, High Court Buildings, Chennai-104. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct thefirst respondent to appoint a Commission of Inquiry headed by asitting Judge of the High Court in consultation with the Hon'bleChief Justice under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to inquire andreport on the following aspects: (i) Review of relationship of Advocates vis-a-vis police force and vice versa and suggestion ofremedial measures; (ii) Review of deficiency or excessive on thepart of Advocates or police force if any and suggestion of remedialmeasures; (iii) Review of the role of Advocates and Judges in thedisposal of various cases pending in courts and suggestion ofremedial measures. For petitioner: Mr.S.A.Miyajan Party-in-person For respondents : Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, G.P.for R1 **** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Heard the petitioner-in-person. This writ petition has beenfiled with a prayer that this Court should appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Enquiries Act, headed by a sittingJudge of this Court in consultation with the Honourable ChiefJustice.2. The prayer for appointment of the said Commission is madein view of certain incident, which had taken place in this Courtsome time in the month of October 2007 between the police and an Advocate in Stanley Hospital. This Court fails to understand as tohow in an incident, which has happened outside the Court, relatingto some law and order situation, which might have called for policeintervention, this Court can appoint an Inquiry Commission. Apartfrom that, under the Commission of Enquiries Act, 1952, the powerto appoint a Commission vests with the appropriate Government andnot with any Judge or the Honourable Chief Justice.3. From a reading of the petition, the main grievance of thepetitioner appears to be that over a confrontation between Advocates and police, ultimately, the Court is boycotted and thishas become a common phenomenon and in order to rectify the same, the present writ petition is filed. We appreciate the concern ofthe petitioner for initiating some steps to be taken to preventboycotting of the Court.

In this matter, law has been clearly stated by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal -vs- Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 that any boycott of Court by the Advocates isper se illegal and contumacious in nature. Therefore, law on thispoint is well settled by the Honourable Apex Court and on thisaspect, no further litigation is required to be filed. This Courtonly appeals to the learned Members of the Bar to follow the saidjudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in future to desist fromany incident of boycotting the Court.

This Court is further given to understand that in order toredress the grievances of the Advocates, already a High PowerCommittee has been formed consisting of Honourable Judges of this Court, the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary of the State of Tamil Nadu, the Members of the Bar and also senior members of thepolice force. In view of such Committee, which is already existing, this Court directs that in respect of any future grievances of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocates against police atrocities, the said Committee should beapproached and functioning of the Court should not be disturbed. This Court makes this observation in view of the fact that even ifthere are cases of police atrocities, the Court of law is theproper forum, before which the Advocates can come and complain, butby stalling the running of such Court, no purpose would be served.