Madras High Court Orders Criminal Case Against Lawyer For Blocking Police From Serving Warrant
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Advocate R. Balasubramanian faces criminal action for stopping police from executing a non-bailable warrant. The Court slammed his misconduct and directed disciplinary steps by the Bar Council.
Chennai: Today, on June 24, the Madras High Court has ordered the police to take criminal action against Advocate R. Balasubramanian for stopping police officers from carrying out their duty of executing a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against his clients.
The Court noted that Balasubramanian not only interfered with the police action but also used abusive language towards the judiciary, which tarnished the image of the legal profession.
Justice PT Asha, who heard the matter, was deeply disturbed by the conduct of the advocate and said:
“Considering the fact that a member of this noble profession has acted in such a fashion which has brought discredit to the profession Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar, learned standing counsel for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry present before this Court is directed to take necessary steps to initiate proceedings against Mr. R. Balasubramanian for the aforesaid acts.”
This direction came during the hearing of a suo motu contempt case filed against three individuals. Earlier, on June 4, the High Court had ordered the police to issue NBWs to these three alleged contemnors and produce them before the Court.
Although the police attempted to comply with the order, they were unsuccessful in producing the contemnors on the scheduled date of June 18.
The police, in an affidavit submitted on June 20, informed the Court that they were stopped from executing the NBWs by Advocate Balasubramanian, who allegedly interfered with their official duties. It was this act of obstruction that prompted the Court to take strict action against the lawyer.
The background of the case involves a transfer application filed by Advocate Balasubramanian on behalf of the three contemnors in a property-related matter.
However, during the court hearing, the three individuals clearly admitted that they did not know what was written in the application, as it was in English and they had not been explained the contents.
They believed they had filed a case about a property dispute and not a transfer petition.
Based on this revelation, Justice PT Asha observed:
“From examining the contemnors, it is evident that they are not aware about the contents. They have also tendered their unconditional apology. Therefore, since the contents of the affidavit are totally unknown to the Contemnors and in the light of their unconditional apology, they have purged themselves of the Contempt. With the above directions, the Contempt Petition is closed.”
However, the Court expressed serious concern about the conduct of Advocate Balasubramanian and the way he had drafted the affidavit.
The Court made it clear that the contents of the affidavit appeared to be entirely written by the lawyer and contained highly objectionable language against both a Labour Court judge and the Judges of the High Court.
“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 of the Labour Court but also against the Judges of this Court.”
Taking all of this into consideration, the Court ordered the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam, to register a case against Advocate Balasubramanian for obstructing police officers from executing the Court’s order and for misguiding his clients with false documentation.
The Court proceedings were represented by Advocate V. Chandrasekaran for the High Court and Advocate S. Sugendran for the State.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Animals
