Madras High Court
R.Jim vs The Secretary on 12 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.(MD) No.11182 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P.(MD) No.11182 of 2025
R.Jim ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Secretary
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
and Pudhucherry
High Court Campus
Chennai-600 104
2.Principal District Judge
Combined District Court Complex
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli-627 002
3.The Secretary
Tirunelveli Bar Association
Combined District Court Complex
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli-627 002 ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:37 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.11182 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take cognizance based on
representation dated 03.04.2025 and to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the erring office bearers of the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jim
Party-in-Person
For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman for R1
Mr.N.Tamilmani for R2
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
first respondent – Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take
cognizance based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.04.2025 and to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring office bearers of the third
respondent – Bar Association.
2. The petitioner appearing in person could not establish who are
all the office bearers illegally and irregularly involved in the affairs of the third
respondent – Bar Association. In the absence of any specific complaint
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:37 pm )
regarding misconduct or illegality, if any, committed by the office bearers, the
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry may not be in a position to initiate
appropriate action. It is needless to state that a complaint must be specific.
3. The petitioner appearing in person states that for flimsy
reasons, boycotts are announced by the third respondent – Bar Association,
thereby causing inconvenience to the public at large and other lawyers, who
are all ready and willing to appear before the courts for the benefit of the
litigants, who are all longing to secure justice in the court of law. The
Honourable Supreme Court of India has time and again reiterated that lawyers
cannot indulge in boycotting the courts for flimsy reasons and in such an
event, strong actions are directed to be initiated by the competent authorities.
That apart, boycotts may not be a proper solution. Legal profession is a noble
profession. Lawyers are not the employees or workmen. They are
professionals and bound to protect the interest of the litigants and the majesty
of the courts. Thus, boycotting the courts frequently on flimsy reasons or
based on certain individual grievances of any lawyer at no circumstance be
appreciated, but the same is to be deprecated. Only in the event of any
common cause, the lawyer has to approach the Bar Council or the competent
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:37 pm )
authorities for the purpose of redressal of their grievance. Contrarily, they
are not expected to resort to boycott unnecessarily, thereby obstructing the
court proceedings.
4. Lawyers are officers of the court. They are stakeholders in the
justice delivery system. Their absence will affect the court proceedings.
Courts would not be in a position to hear and dispose of the cases in the
absence of the lawyers. Their assistance to the court is of paramount
importance in the justice delivery system. Thus, boycotts by the lawyers on
flimsy reasons are undoubtedly a concern to the judiciary and this exactly is
the reason why the Honourable Supreme Court of India time and again in
numerous judgments reiterated that lawyers have to resolve their grievances
by approaching the competent forums or the authorities, than resorting to
boycotts.
5. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, the petitioner
states that he is willing to give a specific complaint against the lawyers, who
are all indulged in such illegal activities or misconduct, to the first respondent
– Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. In the event of receiving any
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:37 pm )
specific complaint from the petitioner against the office bearers of the third
respondent – Bar Association or any practicing lawyers, the first respondent is
directed to initiate all appropriate actions, as contemplated under the
Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder, including the Bar
Council of India Rules.
6. Granting such liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
12.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
The Principal District Judge,
Combined District Court Complex,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-627 002.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:37 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
krk
12.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 06:17:37 pm )
