Disciplinary rules effectively in abeyance, says HC

The Madras High Court today made it clear that the recently notified disciplinary rules, over which lawyers have been protesting for more than two months, are "effectively" in abeyance for now in view of the Full Court's assurance that no action would be taken under the rules till they were reviewed.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan, made the observation during the hearing of a miscellaneous petition by advocate Kasiramalingam seeking to keep the amended rules in abeyance till CCTV cameras were installed in all courts.
"The prayer for keeping the rules in abeyance has practically become infructuous in view of the said prayer having been sub-served by the June 16 last resolution of the Full Court that no action will be initiated on the amended rules, followed by the clarification issued by the Committee of five Judges on July 22 and the consequent press release of July 23.

"Thus, effectively the rules are in abeyance for the time being," the bench said in the order.
The petition came up for hearing a day after the advocates intensified their more than two-month agitation against the rules and virtually laid a siege to the high court campus.
A day ahead of the siege protest, the Bar Council of India suspended 126 lawyers spearheading the protest.

"Your apprehension is that the action will be initiated under the rules... When the Full Court passed a resolution that no action will be taken under the amended rules, that itself means nothing but keeping in abeyance and there is no need for a separate order to be passed again," the Bench said.

Pointing out that the rules were framed only on the basis of a Supreme Court order, the Chief Justice said "the rules were not brought suddenly and if the apex court had stated that the High Court need not make amendments, I may not have done it."
He further said that when representatives of various bar associations and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry approached the court and expressed their apprehension, they were advised to make a representation to the Rules Committee, formed to look into their objections. But unfortunately, this did not happen, Justice Kaul said.
The Chief Justice suggested that the lawyers place their case before the Rules Committee comprising five judges.