"Advocates not above law:" Madras High Court dismisses lawyer's anticipatory bail plea in case on altercation with police over lockdown violation

Advocates are not above law and in fact, they are expected to give more respect to the law since it is their bread and butter, the Madras High Court emphasised on Friday while dismissing a lawyer's anticipatory bail plea over an alleged COVID-19 lockdown violation (Tanuja Rajan @ Tanuja Kanthula and anr v. State)..An advocate is also a citizen and her/his stature should be used in a lawful and legal manner without maligning the reputation of others, the Court said.."It is further to be stressed that advocates are not above law and, in fact, it is the advocates who have to give more respect to the law, as it is their bread and butter. Usage of the position of advocate for other than just causes is nothing but an act of corrupt nature, which requires to be cut down by the sword held in the hands of the statue of Justice. The duty of an advocate is to see to it that the rule of law is followed irrespective of the damage that it would cause to his self," the order further stated..Justice M Dhandapani added that the doyens of the Bar, more so the Madras Bar, have held aloft the rule of law for centuries.."But, nowadays, a few members, just to enrich themselves and for their selfish cause, throw to the winds the larger interest of the legal fraternity and cause irreparable damage to the other members of the legal profession by their acts, as has been done in the present case," the Court expressed concern..The Court was dealing with an anticipatory bail plea moved by an advocate and her daughter against whom a case was registered earlier this month. .What action taken against advocates who misbehave? Madras High Court to Bar Council after lawyer's tussle with police over lockdown violation.The case attracted attention after video footage of a verbal altercation between the lawyer and the police was circulated online, in which the lawyer is seen without a mask, threatening to strip the police officer of his uniform..In the course of dealing with the matter, the Court has also directed the initiation of criminal contempt against another lawyer who is stated to have circulated a derogatory WhatsApp video against Justice Dhandapani. .Madras High Court directs initiation of contempt against lawyer who allegedly circulated audio message against Justice M Dhandapani on WhatsApp.The Court on Friday rejected arguments made for the accused lawyer that her outburst was triggered by police misbehaviour and that it stemmed from motherly affinity for her daughter, who had been stopped by the police for allegedly violating the COVID-19 lockdown.."On a much more deeper analysis of the materials available on record, the same reveals a very sorry state of affairs in which the 1st petitioner (accused lawyer), using the garb of an advocate, has not only tried to strong arm the uniformed force, but is also trying to take this Court for a ride by trying to shed crocodile tears for her acts ... she not only threw the challan, which was issued to the 2nd petitioner by the police authorities, on them, but, thereafter, had used abusive, derogatory, filthy and scathing words on the police officials in a high pitched voice ... This Court should not be a mute spectator to the legal gimmicks that is being performed for getting the 1st petitioner out of the jam in which she has entrapped herself," the High Court observed..The Court added that even if the words stated to have been used by the police were "not to the liking" of the accused lawyer, she could not have acted in a manner to denigrate the dignity of the legal profession. .Given that police officers have been engaged as frontline workers since the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court further observed that "the least expected of the general public and also the intellectual group of legal professionals that they should be given the minimum basic respect and courtesy while handling them.".Allegations made regarding misbehaviour on the part of the police were also found to be not substantiated. On the other hand, the High Court remarked that the trial court's earlier observations on the incident, based on video recordings of the same, revealed a "very sorry state of affairs.".The Court went on to observe that the advocate in question ought to have kept the interest of the legal profession in mind when speaking in the public. Given that the altercation took place in the presence of her daughter, who is a law student, the Judge added:."Not only as a mother, but also as a senior to her daughter in the profession, the 1st petitioner ought to have conducted herself in a manner befitting the status of an advocate.".The Judge also rejected arguments that the case involved an isolated incident, while referring to the trial court's observations regarding a case where the accused lawyer had "conducted herself in similar manner during the election check" and wherein "she had projected herself as an advocate and immune to any checks that the police may conduct.".The Court, therefore, dismissed the lawyer's plea for anticipatory bail, terming her alleged conduct "a clear misuse of her position and professional privilege as an advocate to further her cause, which is impermissible.".However, relief was granted to her daughter who was also charged by the police. The Judge ordered that she should be granted bail upon her surrender before the authorities within fifteen days. .The Court also opined thatthere was no need to level charges against the daughter in the course of its order. "The quarrel that the 2nd petitioner (daughter) is alleged to have had with the police officials on the fateful day cannot be said to be a wrong doing, as it is the mindset of almost every individual, who is being stopped by the police, be it during the pandemic period or even during other times, to enter into quarrel and to justify their actions. Mere quarreling with the police officials cannot be said to be a wrongful act, which would attract the penal provisions pressed into service by the respondents against the 2nd petitioner and any view taken to the contra would be negating the rights guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution," the Court said. .Considering the age of the daughter as well, the Court took the view that no offences were attracted by her conduct. .All the same, the Judge proceeded to acknowledge that it is only dealing with the anticipatory bail plea moved by her and not a case for quashing the proceedings..Notably, the case has led the High Court to urge the Tamil Nadu Bar Council to use its suo motu powers under Section 35 of the Advocates' Act, 1961, to act against advocates found acting in a manner that demeans the legal fraternity even if not complaint is made. .Advocate A Louisal Ramesh appeared for the petitioners. Government advocate (criminal side) A Gopinath appeared for the State wherease Advocate Haja Mohideen Gisthi appeared for the Tamil Nadu Bar Council. .[Read Order]