In a recent case involving eviction for non-payment of rent arrears, the Madras High Court had some harsh words for “so-called” Advocates who opt to act like “paid goondas”..The dispute appears to have been sparked off due to the petitioner’s father’s continued possession of certain property, even though he had not paid rental arrears amounting to about Rs 25 lakhs. While this was the case, there was an attempt to forcibly evict the petitioner from the said premises..Photo and video evidence produced before the Court indicated that an advocate had used force to disturb the petitioner’s possession of the property on March 14, 2018..The petitioner was constrained to approach the Madras High Court, after complaints filed with the police failed to yield any response..In fact, the Court noted that an FIR was finally registered only on the morning of June 12, after the Bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and R Pongiappan began hearing the case. This was despite an earlier direction of the Court on June 5, calling on the police to take appropriate action..Proof of the Advocate’s underhand tactics and the apparent apathy of the police in registering the case has ultimately prompted the Court to shine a negative light on “so-called advocates” who don the black gown as shield to commit illegalities with impunity..In the interim order penned by Justice Kirubakaran for the Bench, the Court has remarked,.“Merely because the persons claiming themselves to be ‘advocates’ are involved, they cannot be above law. Lawyers, as the nomenclature shows, they are supposed to follow the law and they have to safeguard the law and the rights of the citizens.”.Emphasising on the duty of lawyers to safeguard the rights of the people, the Court has expressed its displeasure over the incident thus,.“It is shameful to note that these so-called advocates play the role of ‘Paid goondas’.”.On instruction to inquire into the matter, an enrolment application of the suspected delinquent advocate was produced by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, through its representative, Senior Advocate R Singaravelan..Comparing this application with the submitted visuals, the Court identified that one, S Rajkumar was the Advocate complained of. However, it was noted that the problem does not end with this case..Referring to a recurring tendency by so-called advocates and the police to act hand-in-glove, the Court has observed,.“This incident is only a tip of an iceberg, wherein the ‘so-called advocates’ hand in glove with the police are violating the rights of poor citizens, contrary to the expectations that the police and advocates will safeguard their rights. When the Police and the ‘so-called advocates’ join together and commit offences, the poor citizens are left with no other option except to approach this Court..Therefore, this Court has to necessarily safeguard the citizens and cannot afford to take a lenient view merely [because] the accused are the ‘so-called advocates’.”.In this context, the Court has also opined that a solution has to be found to resolve this issue in public interest..“A number of cases are pending before this Court wherein the possession is said to have been forcibly taken from the occupants illegally by unruly advocates with the aid of the police..Therefore, a solution has to be found by this Court or else it would go against the interest of justice.”.The matter is due to be taken up by the Bench today afternoon, when the police is expected to furnish an action-taken report..Further, the police has been directed to produce the petitioner before the Court. The petitioner had failed to appear on the last date of hearing, after he was told to vacate the disputed premises. While this could have been a plausible reason for his non-appearance, the Court could not dismiss apprehensions that he had been intimidated into not appearing by the police or the Advocate. Therefore, it was directed,.“Whatsoever, this Court is concerned about the security of the petitioner who has approached this Court making serious allegations against the powerful quarters viz., Police and ‘accused lawyers’. Therefore, the respondent/police is directed to apprehend/produce the petitioner before this Court on 19.06.2018 at 02.15 P.M.”.Read Order:
In a recent case involving eviction for non-payment of rent arrears, the Madras High Court had some harsh words for “so-called” Advocates who opt to act like “paid goondas”..The dispute appears to have been sparked off due to the petitioner’s father’s continued possession of certain property, even though he had not paid rental arrears amounting to about Rs 25 lakhs. While this was the case, there was an attempt to forcibly evict the petitioner from the said premises..Photo and video evidence produced before the Court indicated that an advocate had used force to disturb the petitioner’s possession of the property on March 14, 2018..The petitioner was constrained to approach the Madras High Court, after complaints filed with the police failed to yield any response..In fact, the Court noted that an FIR was finally registered only on the morning of June 12, after the Bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and R Pongiappan began hearing the case. This was despite an earlier direction of the Court on June 5, calling on the police to take appropriate action..Proof of the Advocate’s underhand tactics and the apparent apathy of the police in registering the case has ultimately prompted the Court to shine a negative light on “so-called advocates” who don the black gown as shield to commit illegalities with impunity..In the interim order penned by Justice Kirubakaran for the Bench, the Court has remarked,.“Merely because the persons claiming themselves to be ‘advocates’ are involved, they cannot be above law. Lawyers, as the nomenclature shows, they are supposed to follow the law and they have to safeguard the law and the rights of the citizens.”.Emphasising on the duty of lawyers to safeguard the rights of the people, the Court has expressed its displeasure over the incident thus,.“It is shameful to note that these so-called advocates play the role of ‘Paid goondas’.”.On instruction to inquire into the matter, an enrolment application of the suspected delinquent advocate was produced by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, through its representative, Senior Advocate R Singaravelan..Comparing this application with the submitted visuals, the Court identified that one, S Rajkumar was the Advocate complained of. However, it was noted that the problem does not end with this case..Referring to a recurring tendency by so-called advocates and the police to act hand-in-glove, the Court has observed,.“This incident is only a tip of an iceberg, wherein the ‘so-called advocates’ hand in glove with the police are violating the rights of poor citizens, contrary to the expectations that the police and advocates will safeguard their rights. When the Police and the ‘so-called advocates’ join together and commit offences, the poor citizens are left with no other option except to approach this Court..Therefore, this Court has to necessarily safeguard the citizens and cannot afford to take a lenient view merely [because] the accused are the ‘so-called advocates’.”.In this context, the Court has also opined that a solution has to be found to resolve this issue in public interest..“A number of cases are pending before this Court wherein the possession is said to have been forcibly taken from the occupants illegally by unruly advocates with the aid of the police..Therefore, a solution has to be found by this Court or else it would go against the interest of justice.”.The matter is due to be taken up by the Bench today afternoon, when the police is expected to furnish an action-taken report..Further, the police has been directed to produce the petitioner before the Court. The petitioner had failed to appear on the last date of hearing, after he was told to vacate the disputed premises. While this could have been a plausible reason for his non-appearance, the Court could not dismiss apprehensions that he had been intimidated into not appearing by the police or the Advocate. Therefore, it was directed,.“Whatsoever, this Court is concerned about the security of the petitioner who has approached this Court making serious allegations against the powerful quarters viz., Police and ‘accused lawyers’. Therefore, the respondent/police is directed to apprehend/produce the petitioner before this Court on 19.06.2018 at 02.15 P.M.”.Read Order:
