Madras High Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Obstructing Execution Of Non-Bailable Warrant
The Madras High Court pulled up a lawyer for obstructing execution of non-bailable warrants issued against his clients.
The Court was considering Suo-Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against the Contemnors who are clients of the Advocate under scanner.
The single bench of Justice P.T. Asha observed, “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.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate V.Chandrasekaran while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor S.Sugendran.
Facts of the Case
The Court had directed for the execution of non-bailable warrant against the Contemnors earlier in the month. However, the Police in the Affidavit filed later on stated that, though they had complied with the order, they are unable to produce them on account of actions of the Counsel, Mr.R.Balasubramaniam.
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset noted that it is amply evident that the Counsel has prevented a Government servant/Police official from discharging his duties.
It took note of the submission of one of the Contemnors who admitted that he signed the affidavit filed in support of the Tr.C.M.P., in the English language, on behalf of the other Petitioners also without understanding what was written therein and the contents were also not explained to them.
“That apart, on enquiring with the contemnors, it appears that they are not even aware about the fact that they have filed the Tr.C.M.P. They are under the impression that what they have filed is a case seeking return their lands,” the Court observed.
It thus concluded that the contents of the affidavit are also a script prepared by the Counsel and remarked that it is more of a shock considering the language that has been used not only against the Judicial Officer of the Labour Court but also against the Judges.
The Court also took displeasure to the Counsel again abusing and cursing the court during the hearing and directed the Registrar General to initiate action against him.
The Petition was accordingly closed.
Cause Title: High Court of Madras vs. Krishnaveni
