Madras HC lawyers body oppose amendments to disciplinary rules

Contending that the recent amendment of disciplinary rules providing for debarring unruly lawyers would adversely affect basic rights of advocates, the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) has convened for tomorrow its general body meeting to discuss the issue and decide its future course of action.
The MHAA executive committee met here today and discussed the notification issued recently by Madras high court making amendments to existing rules under the Advocates Act with a view to ensuring peaceful conduct of court proceedings and suggesting disciplinary action to be taken against erring advocates.
The committee has decided to convene the general body as the members were of the view that the changes would adversely affect the basic rights of advocates and have serious implications on the profession, MHAA president R C Paul Kanagaraj said.

Referring to amendments to Section 14 A(vii) ofthe act which sought to debar advocates found to have accepted money in the name of a Judge or under the pretext ofinfluencing him/her, the committee members said it would pave the way for litigants making false allegations against their counsel in case of loss of litigation.
Similarly, on debarring advocate found to have sent or spread unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations or petitions against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the superior court, the committee said allegations against judges may not have sufficient proof to substantiate and the advocates could only take the complaint against Judges to the Chief Justice.

Such allegations cannot be substantiated in writing and hence on this basis debarring an advocate was also a serious matter, Kanagraj said.

On invoking the debar provision against advocates who actively participate in a procession inside the court campus or involve in gherao inside the court hall or hold placard, the executive said the lawyers fraternity can only protest inside the campus if they had some grievances regarding functioning of the judiciary.
Legal fraternity cannot do it outside places like political parties do in front of other offices, Kanagaraj said, adding the main objective of the Supreme Court to make amendments and frame such rules to Advocates Act was only to regulate them and not to penalise them.

He said the Judiciary was already having enormous powers such as contempt and the present rules were sufficient to take action against erring lawyers.