[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Rajmohan vs The Judicial Magistrate No.V on 30 April, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1656, 1658, 1761, 1762, 1774 to 1777 of 2026
Crl.O.P(MD) No.1514 of 2026
S. Rajmohan
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai.
.... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
impugned proceedings and consequential impugned show cause
notice in MC.No.07 of 2026 pending on the file of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal,
Senior counsel,
For Mr.C.M.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
1/65
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Crl.O.P(MD) No.1617 of 2026
T.Balarathina Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai.
.... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
impugned proceedings and consequential impugned show cause
notice in MC. No.07/2026 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.V, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai,
For M/s. Dhana Law Associates
Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravindha Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1623 of 2026
Mohan Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai.
.... Respondent
2/65
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
impugned proceedings and consequential impugned show cause
notice in MC. No.07/2026 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.V, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
Crl.O.P(MD) No.1624 of 2026
A.Baskaran
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai.
.... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
impugned proceedings and consequential impugned show cause
notice in MC No.07/2026 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.V, Madurai District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvam,
For C.M.Arumugam
3/65
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
Crl.O.P(MD) No.4711 of 2026
1. A.Baskaran
2. S.Mohan Kumar
3. S.Rajamohan
... Petitioners
Vs.
The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai.
.... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to quash the order (B-Diary entry) dated 11.02.2026
passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madura returning
the vakalaths, and consequently direct the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.V, Madurai to accept the vakalaths and permit.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvam,
Senior counsel,
For Mr.A.S.Vaigunth
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
4/65
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
COMMON ORDER
Prologue:
“If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something
done, ask a woman,” observed Margaret Thatcher, a remark that
resonates with particular force in the present context.
In the case at hand, this Court is witness to a young judicial
officer who, unmindful of the age, stature, or experience of the
members of the Bar, chose not the path of convenience, but that of
conviction. Faced with a charged atmosphere and competing
pressures, she did not yield to expediency, nor retreat into silence,
but acted with resolute determination to uphold the dignity and
authority of the institution she represents. What may be perceived
by some as stubbornness, this Court views as principled firmness,
an essential attribute in the discharge of judicial duty.
The strength of the justice delivery system does not lie merely
in statutes and precedents, but in the character of those entrusted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
with their application. It is through such unwavering commitment,
particularly by those at the very threshold of their judicial journey,
that institutional integrity is preserved and public confidence is
sustained.
Crux of the case:
These batch of Criminal Original Petitions, though presented
by different petitioners, arise out of one common episode, one
common set of proceedings, and one common institutional question.
The petitioners are all practising Advocates and, in four of the cases,
office bearers or members of a Bar Association at Madurai. They
have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking
quashment of the proceedings in M.C.No.07 of 2026 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, together with the
consequential show cause notices issued under Section 384 BNSS,
2023, and, in the connected petition of Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4711 of
2026, the further order dated 11.02.2026 returning the vakalaths,
declining representation through counsel, and directing personal
appearance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
2. Since the foundation of all the petitions is the very same
occurrence and since the rival submissions also substantially
overlap, all these matters are taken up together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
3. The controversy is not a mere private quarrel between an
individual judicial officer and certain members of the Bar. Nor can it
be reduced to a passing misunderstanding. At its heart lies a
question of great institutional significance: to what extent can
members of the Bar, individually or collectively, intervene in
proceedings pending before a Court, and whether conduct
alleged to have interrupted or overawed the Court in the face of
judicial proceedings can be interdicted at the threshold by
exercise of inherent powers?
4. This Court is acutely conscious that the Bar and the Bench
are not adversaries. They are partners in the administration of
justice. The finest traditions of our legal system rest upon mutual
respect, institutional discipline, and a shared understanding that
while lawyers are fearless in defence of their clients, they remain, at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
all times, officers of the Court. The closer the relationship between
the Bar and the Bench, the greater the duty to preserve its dignity.
5. The petitioners plead that the impugned proceedings are
legally unsustainable for want of jurisdiction, absence of specific
allegations, procedural illegality, and predetermination. The
respondent Judicial Magistrate, on the other hand, would maintain
that the events amounted to a deliberate interruption and insult to
the Court in the course of judicial proceedings, attracting Section
267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and that the proceedings under
Section 384 BNSS, 2023 are fully maintainable.
6. Having anxiously considered the pleadings, the common
counter affidavit, the rival submissions, the statutory provisions
placed before this Court, and the authorities cited on either side,
this Court is of the firm view that no ground is made out to quash
the impugned proceedings at this nascent stage, and that the
batch of petitions deserves to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Case of the Prosecution:
7. The respondent, namely the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.V, Madurai, has filed a detailed common counter affidavit setting
out the factual sequence which, according to her, culminated in the
initiation of proceedings under Section 384 BNSS, 2023.
8. The respondent states that on 19.01.2026 at about 6.05
p.m., after the Court had risen for the day, one Advocate, namely
Mr. T. Balarathina Kumar, presented a petition under Section 100
BNSS, 2023 through the Magistrate Clerk, alleging wrongful
detention of one person by the S.S. Colony Police from 7.10 a.m. on
the same day. The petition, according to the respondent, was placed
before her in chambers. Upon examining the same, and without
rejecting it, she directed the Station House Officer to appear before
Court at 10.30 a.m. on 20.01.2026 and further directed that the
petition be listed as the first case on the next day. It is also her case
that even after such judicial directions were made, the said counsel
and his juniors came to the open Court and shouted at a member of
the Court staff, and that the same was captured in the CCTV
footage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
10. The respondent would further state that on 20.01.2026,
when the petition under Section 100 BNSS, 2023 was called as the
first matter at about 10.30 a.m., neither the petitioner therein nor
the counsel was present, and therefore the matter was passed over.
Thereafter, at about 10.35 a.m., the police produced a remand
requisition, in which the very same person referred to in the earlier
petition was shown as Accused No.2.
11. At that stage, according to the respondent, several
Advocates were present in the Court hall, including the counsel for
Accused No.2 and the present petitioners, namely the Bar President,
Secretary, Treasurer, and other members. It is alleged that, instead
of permitting the remand proceedings to continue in an orderly
fashion, the Bar office bearers and others collectively intervened,
insisted that the Court should not proceed with the remand, and
sought to dictate the order to be passed.
12. The respondent specifically alleges that despite her
clarification that the petition under Section 100 BNSS, 2023 had
been registered, listed, and called for, but had been passed over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
owing to non representation, the petitioners continued to interrupt
the proceedings and insisted that the accused should not be
remanded, on the plea that remand would render the Section 100
petition infructuous.
13. It is her further case that when the Court reiterated that
only the counsel named in the petition could represent the matter,
the Bar President, in a sarcastic and enraged tone, uttered the
remark, “Vakalath Nghl;lhjh NgrDk;D vOjpapUf;fh vd;d”,
accompanied by gestures, and repeated the same loudly in open
Court in the presence of advocates and staff.
14. According to the respondent, despite repeated directions
that submissions should be made one at a time, the Court
proceedings were collectively disrupted and the Court was sought to
be overawed. She has stated that she was constrained to rise from
the dais, retire to chambers, and later resume work, and that, even
thereafter, interruptions continued. Since about 160 cases were
pending and witnesses were present, she was compelled to defer the
remand proceedings and take up other Court business.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
15. It is further stated that at about 6.30 p.m., after other
pending matters were dealt with, the remand proceedings were
resumed, at which point the counsel for Accused No.2 made certain
statements, which, according to the respondent, disclosed that he
had full knowledge of the custody and had nevertheless invoked
Section 100 BNSS, 2023. On the basis of the totality of conduct, the
respondent formed a prima facie view that an offence under Section
267 BNS, 2023 had been committed in the face of the Court.
16. The respondent asserts that the entire incident was
captured in CCTV footage and, therefore, steps were taken
immediately to preserve the electronic evidence through the Principal
District Judge, Madurai, for the relevant time blocks on 19.01.2026
and 20.01.2026.
17. The respondent’s stand is that since the offence was
committed in the view and presence of the Court, she was
empowered to take cognizance under Section 384 BNSS, 2023.
According to her, cognizance was taken on 20.01.2026 itself,
though after regular office hours, yet before the actual rising of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Court, which, according to her, occurred only at about 7.30 p.m.
She emphasizes the distinction between “court working hours” and
“rising of the Court”.
18. The respondent also contends that the impugned notices
are only show cause notices, affording the petitioners an opportunity
to explain their conduct, and that the petitions filed before this
Court are premature. The subsequent order dated 11.02.2026,
which is assailed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4711 of 2026, is defended on
the ground that proceedings under Section 384 BNSS, 2023 are
summary in character and do not contemplate avoidance of personal
appearance through counsel alone.
Grounds for quash contended by the Petitioners:
19.The petitioners, in substance, raise the following grounds
for quashment :
(i)Firstly, it is contended that there is no specific overt act
attributed to each of the petitioners, and that the allegations are
vague, omnibus, and bereft of particulars.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
(ii) Secondly, it is submitted that even if the allegations are
accepted in their entirety, the ingredients of Section 267 BNS, 2023
are not made out, since there was no intentional insult or
interruption.
(iii) Thirdly, it is argued that the mandatory procedure under
Section 384 BNSS, 2023 has been violated, since cognizance,
according to the petitioners, was not taken before the rising of the
Court on the same day, but only thereafter, and the notices
themselves came to be issued on the next day.
(iv) Fourthly, it is contended that, once the Magistrate did not
conclude the matter in the manner contemplated by Section 384
BNSS, 2023, the only permissible course was to act under Section
385 BNSS, 2023 by forwarding the matter to another Magistrate.
(v) Fifthly, the petitioners would submit that the repeated use
of the expression “offenders” and the recital in the proceedings that
they had committed an offence demonstrate predetermination and
bias, thereby vitiating the entire process.
(vi) Sixthly, it is urged that there is no contemporaneous
judicial record sufficient to support the allegations and that the
counter affidavit impermissibly supplements or improves upon the
original proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
(vii) Seventhly, the order dated 11.02.2026 is separately
attacked on the ground that refusal to receive vakalath, denial of
representation through counsel, and insistence upon personal
appearance are contrary to law and natural justice. On the above
grounds, the petitioners pray that the show cause notices, the
proceedings in M.C.No.07 of 2026, and the consequential order
dated 11.02.2026 be quashed.
Submissions on the side of the Petitioners/Respondent on
17.02.2026:
20. When the matter was taken up for arguments on
17.02.2026, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the present issue has arisen out of a
misunderstanding between the members of the Bar and the Bench,
and therefore, the matter requires a harmonious and forward-
looking resolution rather than adversarial adjudication. It was
contended that the petitioners, being senior members and office
bearers of the Bar Association, had entered the Court only for the
limited purpose of making a representation in the interest of the Bar
and not with any intention to interfere with the judicial proceedings
or to show any disrespect to the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
21.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there
was no deliberate act of intimidation, threat, or obstruction on the
part of the petitioners and that the incident, if at all, was momentary
and unintentional, arising out of professional exigencies. It was
emphasized that the petitioners continue to hold the highest regard
for the institution of the judiciary and that their conduct ought not
to be misconstrued as an affront to the dignity of the Court.
22. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
petitioners are willing to resolve the issue amicably and had
proposed a conciliation through in-camera interaction, wherein the
parties could exchange pleasantries, assure mutual respect, and
undertake to maintain cordial relations in future. However, it was
categorically stated that no occasion has arisen warranting an
apology, as the petitioners do not admit to any misconduct, and the
proposed compromise is only with a view to restore institutional
harmony.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
23. It was further argued that continuation of the proceedings
would unnecessarily escalate tensions between the Bar and the
Bench, and would leave a permanent record affecting professional
relationships, which would not be conducive to the functioning of
the judicial system. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that this
Hon’ble Court may adopt a pragmatic approach by focusing on a
forward- looking resolution rather than dwelling on past events.
24. On the legal aspect, the learned Senior Counsel raised the
issue regarding the propriety of issuance of the show cause notice on
the subsequent day and whether such proceedings ought to have
been concluded summarily on the same day. It was also submitted
that the petitioners must be afforded an opportunity to file a
rejoinder to the counter affidavit, particularly in view of the detailed
allegations made therein.
25. The learned Senior Counsel ultimately submitted that
while the petitioners are ready to argue the matter on merits, they
would prefer that this Hon’ble Court intervenes to evolve a
mechanism or resolution that would regulate such situations in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
future and prevent recurrence, thereby preserving the dignity of both
the Bar and the Bench.
26. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/
Judicial Magistrate, in response, strongly opposed the proposal for
compromise and submitted that the issue is not personal in nature
but concerns the dignity and authority of the judicial institution. It
was stated that the incident did not occur within the confines of a
private chamber but in open Court, in the presence of advocates,
litigants, and members of the public, and therefore, any attempt to
resolve the issue privately would be inappropriate.
27. The learned Counsel submitted that the conduct of the
petitioners amounted to threatening and undermining the authority
of the Court and that such behaviour cannot be condoned under the
guise of professional representation. It was emphasized that
advocates are expected to adhere to high standards of professional
ethics and that any deviation from such standards, particularly in
open Court, must be addressed with seriousness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
28. It was further submitted that there has been no restriction
on representation by senior counsel or Bar office bearers and that
the objection is only to the manner in which the petitioners entered
the Court, interrupted proceedings, and conducted themselves in a
manner that was unbecoming of members of the legal profession.
The learned Counsel for the Judicial Magistrate asserted that if such
conduct is permitted or trivialized, it would send a dangerous
message that Court proceedings can be influenced through pressure
or intimidation.
29. The learned Counsel for the Judicial Magistrate also
brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court the subsequent
developments following the issuance of the show cause notice,
including the alleged boycott of Court proceedings and disruption of
functioning from the corridors and in the neighbouring Courts. It
was submitted that such actions further aggravate the situation and
demonstrate a pattern of conduct that undermines the
administration of justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
30. It was categorically stated that the incident has affected
not the individual officer but the institution of the Court itself and
that it cannot be resolved through a private handshake or informal
settlement. The learned Magistrate emphasized that every statement
made in the counter affidavit and proceedings has been made
consciously and with full responsibility, and that if any word is
found to be inappropriate, this Hon’ble Court is at liberty to take
action.
31. The learned Counsel for the Judicial Magistrate ultimately
submitted that the matter requires judicial determination and that
any resolution must address the institutional damage caused, rather
than merely restoring superficial harmony. It was therefore insisted
that this Hon’ble Court may take appropriate action to uphold the
dignity and authority of the judiciary.
Observations of the Court:
32. This Court observed that the petitioners are at liberty
either to argue the matter on merits or to propose a meaningful
compromise, provided the same is acceptable to the respondent. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Court expressed the view that the action taken by the learned
Magistrate appears to be at a minimal level in the context of the
allegations and that mere exchange of pleasantries without
acknowledgment of the issue may not suffice.
33. The Court further observed that a smooth relationship
between the Bar and the Bench must be ensured through discipline
and adherence to professional norms, and that practices such as
entering the Court during proceedings to influence or advise the
presiding officer must be regulated or discontinued in the interest of
the institution. Accordingly, this Court directed the petitioners to file
their rejoinder within the stipulated time and posted the matter for
arguments on merits on 24.02.2026.
Final Arguments on Either Side on 24.02.2026:
34. Introductory Submission and Background:
The learned Senior Counsel Thiru.S.R.Rajagopal, Thiru. Prabu
Rajadurai, Thiru. Thirunavukkarasu, Thiru.C.M.Arumugam
appearing for the petitioners commenced their submissions by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
stating that the petitioners had approached this Court in a spirit of
reconciliation and institutional respect, metaphorically submitting
that they had “hoisted the flag of peace,” but were constrained to
litigate due to the absence of any reciprocal response. It was further
submitted that the present proceedings arise out of an unfortunate
and isolated incident within the Court premises, which has been
magnified into a proceeding under Section 384 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
35. Factual Matrix Leading to the Incident:
35.1. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that on
19.01.2026 at about 5.00 p.m., a petition under Section 100 BNSS,
2023 was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V,
Madurai, alleging illegal detention of a client by the Inspector of
Police, S.S. Colony Police Station. It was specifically brought to the
notice of the learned Magistrate that an order had already been
passed by this Court in a Criminal Original Petition restraining the
arrest of the said person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
35.2. However, despite the said submission, the learned
Magistrate allegedly declined to consider the petition and rose from
the dais. It was further contended that the learned Magistrate
contacted the concerned police officer, who appeared before the
Court, but no effective judicial order was passed on that day. On the
following day, i.e., 20.01.2026, when the matter was taken up, a
remand requisition was presented by the police, despite the
subsisting order of this Court restraining arrest. It was at this stage
that certain members of the Bar, including the petitioners, made
submissions requesting that the earlier petition be taken up first.
36. Reliance on CCTV Footage:
The learned Senior Counsel placed heavy reliance on the CCTV
footage of the Court proceedings, which was viewed pursuant to the
direction of this Court. It was submitted that the entire incident
lasted only about two minutes and did not involve any form of
collective disruption or intimidation. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, the footage reveals that only the Bar Secretary made a brief
representation, and that too in a respectful manner, without raising
his voice or making any threatening gesture. It was specifically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
contended that the alleged raising of the index finger or aggressive
conduct, as recorded in the show cause notice, is factually incorrect
and not borne out by the video evidence.
37. Challenge to the Show Cause Notice – Procedural
Illegality:
37.1. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the
initiation of proceedings under Section 384 BNSS, 2023 is wholly
without jurisdiction and in violation of the statutory mandate. It was
submitted that Section 384 BNSS, 2023 requires that cognizance
must be taken “before the rising of the Court on the same day” and
that the entire proceeding, including the opportunity to show cause,
must be completed on the same day. In the present case, the show
cause notice is dated 21.01.2026, whereas the alleged occurrence
took place on 20.01.2026, thereby vitiating the proceedings. Further,
it was contended that the learned Magistrate has herself recorded
that cognizance was taken “after court working hours,” which clearly
indicates that the statutory requirement was not complied with. It
was also argued that the order was passed in chambers, which is
impermissible in view of Rule 4.4 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
38.Non-Applicability of Section 384 and Requirement to
Proceed under Section 385 BNSS, 2023:
The learned Senior Counsel submitted that once the learned
Magistrate failed to act within the time frame prescribed under
Section 384 BNSS, 2023, she lost jurisdiction to proceed under the
said provision. In such circumstances, the only permissible course
was to proceed under Section 385 BNSS, 2023 by forwarding the
matter to another Magistrate. It was contended that the continued
retention of the proceedings by the same Magistrate is contrary to
the statutory scheme and amounts to a violation of fair procedure.
39.Predetermination and Violation of Natural Justice:
The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
repeated use of the term “offenders” in the diary proceedings and
orders of the learned Magistrate demonstrates a clear
predetermination of guilt. It was argued that even before affording an
opportunity to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has recorded a
finding that they have committed an offence under Section 267 BNS,
2023. Such conduct, according to the petitioners, is in violation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
the principles of natural justice and renders the proceedings vitiated
by bias.
40.Absence of Ingredients of Section 267 BNS, 2023:
The learned Senior Counsel contended that even if the
allegations in the show cause notice are taken at face value, they do
not constitute an offence under Section 267 BNS, 2023. It was
submitted that the essential ingredient of the offence is “intentional
insult or interruption,” which requires the presence of mens rea. In
the present case, the conduct of the petitioners was merely a
professional request to consider a petition in light of a subsisting
High Court order, and cannot be construed as intentional insult or
obstruction.
41.Discrepancies Between Show Cause Notice,
Proceedings, and Counter Affidavit:
The learned Senior Counsel elaborately pointed out
inconsistencies between the show cause notice, the diary
proceedings, and the counter affidavit filed by the learned
Magistrate. It was submitted that the allegations have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
progressively “improved” at each stage and that several facts stated
in the proceedings are not reflected in the show cause notice. It was
argued that such supplementation of reasons is impermissible in
law, as held in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner1.
42. Failure to Consider High Court Order and Conduct of
Police:
The learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the learned
Magistrate failed to take note of the binding order of this Court
restraining arrest, and instead proceeded to entertain the remand
requisition submitted by the police. It was argued that the proper
course of action would have been to question the police for violating
the order of this Court, rather than initiating proceedings against the
advocates who brought the violation to the notice of the Court.
43.Apprehension of Bias and Inability to Continue
Proceedings:
The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the filing of
a detailed counter affidavit by the learned Magistrate defending her
1 1977 SCC OnLine SC 323
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
actions gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. It was
contended that the same officer cannot fairly adjudicate the matter
after having taken a definitive stand. Reliance was placed on settled
principles that justice must not only be done but must also be seen
to be done. In fine, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
prayed that the show cause notice and the consequential
proceedings in M.C. No.7 of 2026 be quashed as being without
jurisdiction, legally unsustainable, and an abuse of process of Court.
Submissions on the side of the Respondent:
44.Maintainability and Scope of Interference:
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that the present petition is not maintainable, as it challenges only a
show cause notice, which is merely a preliminary step. It was
contended that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
528 BNSS, 2023 is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional
circumstances, such as where there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or
where no offence is made out on the face of the record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
45. Prematurity of the Petition:
Relying on settled principles of law, it was submitted that a
show cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action, as it does
not affect the rights of the parties. The petitioners have an adequate
opportunity to submit their explanation before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, and therefore, the petition is premature.
46.Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 384
BNSS, 2023:
The learned Counsel contended that the learned Judicial
Magistrate has validly exercised jurisdiction under Section 384
BNSS, 2023. It was submitted that cognizance was taken on the
same day, i.e., 20.01.2026, and that the mere fact that the notice
was formally issued on the next day does not vitiate the proceedings.
It was further argued that the expression “before the rising of the
Court” does not mean “within court hours” and that the Court can
continue to sit beyond the prescribed hours, if necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
47. Nature of Proceedings under Section 384 BNSS, 2023:
The learned Counsel submitted that proceedings under
Section 384 BNSS, 2023 are summary in nature and are akin to
contempt in the face of the Court. In such proceedings, the presiding
officer acts based on what is witnessed in the Court, and therefore,
there is no requirement of a full fledged trial. It was contended that
the opportunity contemplated under the provision is only with
respect to the quantum of punishment and not for determining guilt.
48.Conduct of Petitioners Constituting Interference:
The learned Counsel submitted that the conduct of the petitioners,
as recorded in the proceedings, clearly amounts to interference with
judicial proceedings. It was argued that the collective presence of
advocates and their insistence on a particular course of action
disrupted the proceedings and justified the initiation of action under
Section 384 BNSS, 2023.
49.Filing of Counter by Judicial Officer:
The learned Counsel defended the filing of a counter affidavit
by the learned Magistrate, stating that there is no legal bar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
preventing a judicial officer from placing facts before this Court when
impleaded as a respondent. It was submitted that in proceedings of
this nature, the judicial officer is not acting as a neutral adjudicator
but as a respondent explaining the circumstances leading to the
impugned action.
50.Availability of Alternative Remedies:
It was contended that the petitioners have an effective
alternative remedy of participating in the proceedings before the
learned Judicial Magistrate and placing their defence. Therefore, the
invocation of inherent jurisdiction at this stage is unwarranted.
51.Protection of Institutional Integrity:
The learned Counsel emphasized that the proceedings have
been initiated not to protect the dignity of an individual officer, but
to safeguard the administration of justice and maintain discipline
within the Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
respondent propounded that the Criminal Original Petition be
dismissed as not maintainable and premature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Points for Consideration:
52. In the light of the pleadings and submissions, the following
points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned proceedings under Section 384
BNSS, 2023 are without jurisdiction on the ground that cognizance
was not taken before the rising of the Court on the same day?
(ii) Whether the show cause notices and proceedings are liable
to be quashed for want of specific allegations or for failure to disclose
the ingredients of Section 267 BNS, 2023?
(iii) Whether the proceedings are vitiated by predetermination,
bias, or violation of natural justice?
(iv) Whether the order dated 11.02.2026 returning vakalaths,
refusing representation through counsel, and insisting on personal
appearance warrants interference?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
(v) Whether this Court ought to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 to quash the impugned
proceedings at the show cause stage?
Analysis:
I. The Position of an Advocate as Officer of the Court:
53. Before adverting to the facts, this Court considers it
necessary to restate certain first principles governing the legal
profession.
54. The Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II,
Section I, cast explicit duties upon an advocate towards the Court.
Rule 1 mandates that an advocate shall conduct himself with dignity
and self- respect while acting before a Court. Rule 2 requires an
advocate to maintain a respectful attitude towards Courts, bearing
in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the
survival of a free community. Rule 3 prohibits any attempt to
influence the decision of a Court by illegal or improper means. Rule
4 requires an advocate not to act as a mere mouthpiece of the client
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
and obliges him to use restrained language and avoid improper
conduct during arguments in Court. These rules are not
ornamental declarations. They are normative standards
inseparable from the privilege of audience before a Court of
law.
55. In D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra2, the Hon’ ble
Supreme Court emphasized that the monopoly statutorily granted to
the legal profession obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously
those norms which make him worthy of the confidence of the
community as a vehicle of justice. The Hon’ ble Apex Court reminded
that law is no trade and briefs are no merchandise.
56. In O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana,
(2011) 6 SCC 86, the Hon’ ble Supreme Court held that an advocate
must act with utmost sincerity and respect and that any violation of
professional ethics is unfortunate and unacceptable. The Hon’ ble
Supreme Court underscored that an advocate is under an obligation
to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system
functions at its full potential.
2 (2001) 2 SCC 221
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
57. In Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry3, the
Hon’ ble Supreme Court observed that the credibility and reputation
of the profession depend upon the manner in which members of the
profession conduct themselves.
58. In Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In re4, the
Hon’ ble Supreme Court declared that the legal profession is a
solemn and serious occupation, a noble calling, and that the honour
of the profession has to be maintained by exemplary conduct both in
and outside Court.
59. In Harbans Lal Arora v. Divisional Supdt. Central
Railway5, it was observed that the Bar and the Bench are the joint
guardians of the rule of law.
60. In Prem Surana v. Addl. Munsif & Judicial
Magistrate6, the Hon’ ble Supreme Court reiterated that in the
justice delivery system, members of the Bar are as much a part
3 (2001) 6 SCC 1
4 (1995) 3 SCC 619
5 AIR 1960 All 164
6 (2002) 6 SCC 722
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
thereof as the Judges, and that it is the closest possible harmony
between the Bar and the Bench that yields the best results.
61. Therefore, while an advocate is entitled to be
fearless, he is never entitled to be intemperate; while he may
be firm, he cannot be overbearing; while he may criticize, he
cannot insult; while he may persuade, he cannot pressure; and
while he may protect the rights of the client, he cannot
obstruct the course of justice.
II. Scope of Section 384 BNSS, 2023 and Section 267 BNS,
62. Section 267 BNS, 2023 penalises intentional insult or
interruption to a public servant while such public servant is sitting
in any stage of a judicial proceeding. Section 384 BNSS, 2023
provides a summary procedure where such offence is committed in
the view or presence of the Court.
63. The scheme of Section 384 BNSS, 2023 shows that where
an offence of the specified nature is committed in the face of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Court, the Court may, before rising on the same day, take
cognizance, afford a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and then
proceed in the manner prescribed. Sub section (2) requires recording
of the facts constituting the offence, the statement of the offender,
the finding, and sentence. Sub-section (3), in the case of Section 267
BNS, 2023, requires the record to show the nature and stage of the
judicial proceeding and the nature of the interruption or insult.
64. Section 385 BNSS, 2023 comes into play where the Court
considers that the case should not be dealt with under Section 384,
whether because a greater sentence is warranted or for any other
reason. In such event, the matter may be forwarded to a Magistrate
having jurisdiction.
65. Section 387 BNSS, 2023 further recognises the power of
the Court to discharge the offender or remit punishment on apology
being made to its satisfaction. The legislative architecture thus
clearly treats such misconduct as one affecting the Court in the
discharge of its judicial function and provides a calibrated,
summary, but legally structured procedure. The jurisprudential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
basis of such summary power is not alien to our system. In Vinay
Chandra Mishra, In re7, the Hon’ ble Supreme Court explained that
in certain residue cases, immediate or summary action is justified
because it is the only realistic way of dealing with disruptive conduct
in Court. The Hon’ ble Supreme Court held that the purpose is not to
protect the Judge personally but to protect the administration of
justice and restore order in the hearing.
66. Likewise, in Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey8, the Hon’ ble
Supreme Court reiterated that contempt proceedings affecting the
authority and functioning of the Court must be decided in a
summary manner and that immediate steps are necessary to restore
order and maintain the efficacy of judicial administration. The
essence of the law, therefore, is that when conduct in the face
of the Court tends to interrupt, insult, overawe, or obstruct the
due course of judicial proceedings, the law arms the Court
with immediate powers, subject to procedural safeguards, to
protect the institution.
7 (1995) 2 SCC 584
8 (2004) 5 SCC 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
66.1. It would be apposite to recall the observations of the
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, The Chief Justice of India, made
while inaugurating the Additional Court Buildings at the Madurai
District Court Campus on 19.04.2026:
“I have, on many occasions, emphasised that the
District Judiciary is the backbone of our justice delivery
system. This is not a mere pleasantry or a ceremonial
expression, but a statement of structural reality. For the vast
majority of our citizens, the District Court is the first court
they enter, and for many, it remains the only court they ever
know. While the Supreme Court and the High Courts
interpret, refine, and shape the law, it is the District
Judiciary that breathes life into it, imparting daily meaning
to the law in the lived experiences of ordinary people. If the
higher judiciary may be regarded as the mind of the legal
system, the District Judiciary is its lifeblood, the vital organs
and sinews that sustain and hold the entire system
together.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
III. Whether the Proceedings are Liable to be Quashed for
Want of Specific Allegations:
67. The petitioners’ first line of attack is that the allegations
are vague and omnibus. This Court is unable to accept such
submission at this stage. The common counter affidavit and the
proceedings, read as a whole, do not merely make abstract
accusations. They narrate the date, the context, the nature of the
proceedings then underway, the names of the counsel and Bar office
bearers stated to have intervened, the stand allegedly taken by them,
and even one particular remark attributed to the Bar President. The
respondent has also stated that repeated collective interruptions
were made when the remand requisition was under consideration.
68. Whether those allegations are ultimately proved, whether
the CCTV footage supports them in full or in part, whether the
conduct was momentary or substantial, and whether a particular
petitioner’s role was active, passive, or merely incidental, are all
matters that lie in the realm of adjudicatory appreciation. They are
not matters that can be conclusively decided in a petition for
quashment at the threshold.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
68.1. Considerable emphasis was laid on the alleged failure to
take note of the binding interim order of this Court restraining
arrest, and on the course adopted by the learned Magistrate in
entertaining the remand requisition submitted by the police. It was
vehemently contended that the proper course would have been to
call upon the police to explain the purported violation of the order of
this Court, rather than initiating proceedings against the advocates
who had brought such violation to the notice of the Court. However,
the factual position discloses that the client of Mr. T. Bala
Rathnakumar, along with another, had filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 402 of
2026 before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a
crime number not then specified, arising out of the same
transaction. This Court, by order dated 09.01.2026, passed the
following interim directions:
“5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court directs
the petitioners to appear before the respondent police daily at
10.30 a.m. till 30.01.2026 and co-operate for the enquiry.
6. Post the matter on 30.01.2026. The respondent police is
directed not to arrest the petitioners till then. Further, the
respondent police is directed to file a status report on
30.01.2026, without fail.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
68.2. It is significant to note that a copy of the said order was
marked only to the Inspector of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station
(Law & Order), Madurai City, and to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai, and
not to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai.
68.3. It is further evident that neither the counsel for the
allegedly arrested accused, namely Mr. T. Bala Rathnakumar, while
presenting the petition under Section 100 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 19.01.2026, nor the accused at the time
of his production for remand on 20.01.2026, nor even the Inspector
of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station, placed the said interim order
before the learned Judicial Magistrate. On the contrary, Mr. T. Bala
Rathnakumar, one of the petitioners herein, having suppressed the
order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 402 of 2026 dated
09.01.2026, proceeded to file the petition under Section 100 of
BNSS, 2023, despite being aware that his client had voluntarily
appeared before the S.S. Colony Police Station in compliance with
the aforesaid order of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
68.4. Having thus approached the learned Magistrate on
19.01.2026 without disclosing the material facts, it is evident from
the available CCTV footage that, on the following day, i.e.,
20.01.2026, he proceeded to mobilise the office bearers of the
Madurai Bar Association within the Court hall of the learned
Judicial Magistrate.
69. The settled principle governing quash jurisdiction is that
where the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose the ingredients
of an offence or a statutory proceeding, the High Court does not
ordinarily embark upon a meticulous evaluation of disputed facts.
Here, the allegation is not one of remote inference. It is an allegation
by the Presiding Officer that, while she was sitting in a judicial
proceeding, the petitioners and others collectively interrupted the
hearing, insisted on a particular judicial course, and used language
and conduct amounting to insult and interference. Such allegation,
if ultimately established, would clearly attract the field of Section
267 BNS, 2023. At this stage, therefore, this Court is unable to
hold that no offence is even prima facie made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
IV. Interpretation of the Phrase “Before Rising of the
Court on the Same Day”:
70. Considerable argument was advanced on the expression
“before the rising of the Court on the same day” occurring in
Section 384 BNSS, 2023. The petitioners would equate this
expression with regular Court hours or office hours. The respondent
would distinguish the two and contend that the Court continued to
sit till about 7.30 p.m., and that cognizance was taken before the
Court actually rose for the day.
71. This Court finds substantial force in the respondent’s
construction. A Court is not a time-clock institution governed solely
by the outer boundary of office hours. Judicial work frequently
extends beyond scheduled hours, especially in remand matters,
urgent applications, part heard cases, and cases involving witnesses.
The expression employed by the statute is not “before the close of
office hours” but “before the rising of the Court”. The legislature
has consciously used an expression associated with the actual
sitting and adjournment of the Court, not with clerical timings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
72. The respondent has specifically asserted that the Court
rose only around 7.30 p.m. and that cognizance was taken in open
Court before rising and the available CCTV footage adds strength to
this contention. She has also explained that assignment of a case
number on the next day was only an administrative consequence,
whereas the judicial act of cognizance had already taken place.
73. Whether this assertion is correct on fact is not a matter
that can be conclusively negatived in a petition for quashment. The
CCTV footage and the judicial record are matters available for
consideration. So long as the respondent’s case, on its face, is that
the cognizance was taken before the actual rising of the Court on the
same day, this Court cannot, in inherent jurisdiction, declare the
proceedings void ab initio.
74. The petitioners’ submission that Section 384 requires not
merely cognizance but the entire process to be concluded on the
same day is also too broad a proposition to be accepted in the
absolute form in which it is stated. The provision requires
cognizance before the rising of the Court on the same day and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
requires a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. The content and
extent of such opportunity may vary with circumstances, but at any
rate, the present proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the
formal notices bear the next day’s date, especially when the
respondent’s specific stand is that cognizance itself was taken on the
same day. Therefore, the contention founded on timing does
not, at this stage, render the proceedings non est.
V. Whether Section 385 BNSS, 2023 ought Necessarily to
Have Been Invoked:
75. The petitioners next contend that once the matter was not
summarily concluded under Section 384 BNSS, 2023, the
respondent necessarily had to invoke Section 385 BNSS, 2023 and
forward the matter to another Magistrate. This argument also cannot
be accepted as an inflexible rule.
76. Section 385 BNSS, 2023 is attracted where the Court
considers that the case should not be dealt with under Section 384,
whether because a greater punishment is warranted or for any other
reason. The provision is discretionary and conditional. Unless the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Court forms such opinion, the mere existence of Section 385 does
not automatically strip the Court of power under Section 384.
77. At this stage, the learned Magistrate has not yet imposed
punishment. The proceedings are still at the stage of calling upon
the petitioners to show cause. The argument that the Magistrate
ought to have mandatorily forwarded the matter under Section 385
is, therefore, premature.
VI. Alleged Predetermination and Use of the Expression
“Offenders”:
78. The petitioners place heavy reliance on the use of the word
“offenders” and on the recital that the petitioners had committed an
offence under Section 267 BNS, 2023. According to them, this
betrays a closed mind. It is indeed a settled principle that judicial
language, particularly in proceedings impinging upon personal
liberty or professional standing, must be marked by restraint,
sobriety, and circumspection. Expressions indicative of a concluded
determination at a preliminary stage are, as a rule, to be eschewed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
79. However, the statutory scheme governing summary
proceedings in cases of certain forms of contempt, as contemplated
under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, makes a conscious departure in terminology and procedure.
The provision envisages that, upon cognizance of the offence being
taken before the rising of the Court, the person concerned is treated
as an “offender” rather than a “contemner,” even prior to the
issuance of a show cause notice, with the object of affording him a
reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is also apposite to note
that the provision empowers the Court, in appropriate
circumstances, to direct the detention of such offender in custody on
the very same day, even prior to the formal taking of cognizance,
provided such action is undertaken before the rising of the Court.
80. However, in proceedings under Section 384 BNSS, 2023,
the Court acts upon an occurrence witnessed in its own presence
and records the facts constituting the offence. The very structure of
the provision contemplates that the Court forms a prima facie
opinion that an offence in its view or presence has occurred. That, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
itself, cannot be equated with final adjudication of guilt in the sense
understood in a regular criminal trial.
81. The law in this branch has long recognised that
proceedings for in facie curiae misconduct possess a summary and
exceptional character. In Vinay Chandra Mishra9 the Hon’ ble
Supreme Court held that such power is exercised not to vindicate
personal dignity but to protect the administration of justice.
82. Therefore, though the terminology employed by the learned
Magistrate may be open to criticism as being stronger than what
prudence would commend at a notice stage, that circumstance alone
does not persuade this Court to hold that the proceeding is vitiated
beyond cure. The petitioners will still have the opportunity to place
their explanation, contest the factual allegations, rely upon the
CCTV footage, and urge every legal objection available to them.
Inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to prevent abuse of
process, not to entertain every phraseology into a ground for
annihilating a statutory proceeding.
9 Supra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
VII. Filing of Counter Affidavit by the Judicial Officer:
83. Much criticism was directed against the filing of a detailed
counter affidavit by the learned Magistrate. This Court is unable to
hold that the mere filing of a counter affidavit, when the judicial
officer is arrayed as a respondent, renders the proceedings illegal.
84. The officer has not stepped out of judicial office to become
a partisan litigant in the ordinary sense. She has placed before this
Court the circumstances in which the impugned action came to be
taken, that too, at the instance of this Court. When the challenge
is mounted to proceedings initiated by the Court in the face of
judicial proceedings, a factual explanation from the Presiding Officer
is neither unexpected nor impermissible.
VIII. Right of Audience, Vakalath, and Representation
Through Counsel:
85. The challenge in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4711 of 2026 calls for
separate consideration. The petitioners rely upon Section 30 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 and assert a right to be represented through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
counsel. However, the right of an advocate to practise, though
substantial, is always subject to the supervisory control of the Court
over its own proceedings.
86. In Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali 10, as noticed in the
materials placed before this Court,theHon’ ble Supreme Court
observed that while the right to practise is the genus, the right to
appear and conduct cases in Court is a matter on which the Court
must have major supervisory power. In Bhiwa Yeshwant v.
Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation11, the Hon’ ble Bombay High
Court held that appearance before Court is not a matter of blanket
entitlement in every circumstance, and may depend upon leave of
the Court.
87. In Baru Singh v. Babu Ram Sharma12, the Hon’ ble
Supreme Court observed that a signed vakalatnama is ordinarily
required when a lawyer is to appear and plead before a Court on
behalf of a client. Equally relevant is the observation in V.C.
10 (2001) 8 SCC 650
11 1978 Mh LJ 589
12 1996 SCC OnLine All 478
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan13, as cited in the materials, that it is not
in accordance with professional etiquette for an advocate to hand
over his brief to another advocate to take his place and conduct the
case as though he himself were briefed, unless the client so agrees.
88. The present matter, however, is not a routine adjudication
between private parties. It concerns proceedings under Section 384
BNSS, 2023 for alleged misconduct in the face of the Court. The
learned Magistrate, in the impugned order dated 11.02.2026,
appears to have insisted upon the personal appearance of those
proceeded against and declined to accept vakalaths tendered on
their behalf.
89. This Court is not inclined to hold, in the abstract, that
proceedings under Section 384 BNSS, 2023 always and absolutely
bar representation through counsel. Equally, this Court is not
prepared to hold that the person proceeded against is entitled, as of
right, to avoid personal appearance altogether and participate solely
through counsel in a proceeding of this character.
13 1978 SCC OnLine SC 270
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
90. The statutory scheme itself requires the Court to give the
offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. The form of
such opportunity must be meaningful, though it need not mirror a
full- fledged criminal trial. Personal presence in such proceedings
may well be insisted upon. The assistance of counsel, where
appropriate, may be regulated by the Court in a manner consistent
with orderly procedure.
91. But the order dated 11.02.2026 cannot, in the peculiar
facts of this case and at this stage, be singled out for quashment. It
forms part of the same continuum of proceedings, and the grievance
of the petitioners in that regard can adequately be worked out before
the learned Magistrate and, if necessary, in accordance with law
thereafter. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not meant
to micro- manage the procedural incidents of an ongoing summary
proceeding, unless manifest illegality of a grave order is shown. Such
threshold is not met here.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
IX. The Institutional Dimension:
92. The most important aspect of the matter lies beyond
individual grievances. Courts exist not by physical structures but by
public confidence. The independence of the judiciary at the district
level is no less precious than at the constitutional level. The trial
Court is the face of justice for the ordinary citizen. If the atmosphere
of that Court is permitted to be clouded by shouting, collective
pressure, gestures of derision, or attempts to influence the course of
a remand hearing, the injury is not to a person alone; it is to the
justice system.
93. In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P.,14, the
Hon’ ble Supreme Court warned that the growing tendency of
maligning judicial officers by advocates who fail to secure desired
orders must be curbed, since it touches not merely the officer but
the institution as a whole. In M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab
& Haryana15, the Hon’ ble Supreme Court held that attacks on
14 (2011) 7 SCC 776
15 (1991) 3 SCC 600
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
judicial officers by members of the Bar scandalise the Court and
undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
94. In Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court16, the
Hon’ ble Supreme Court held that there can be nothing more serious
than an act of an advocate if it tends to impede, obstruct, or prevent
the administration of law or destroys public confidence in such
administration. In R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court17, the Hon’ ble
Supreme Court observed that the Court has not only the right but
also the obligation to protect itself and preserve the purity of its
proceedings from being polluted.
95. In Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey18, the Hon’ ble Supreme
Court declared that the Courts cannot be compelled to give
“command orders” and that intimidation of judicial officers strikes at
the whole judiciary. In State v. Sunderlal Srivastava19, it was
beautifully observed by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court that no Court
can give its best to the litigant public without the cooperation of the
16 (2003) 3 SCC 427
17 (2009) 8 SCC 106
18 2004 (5) SCC 26
19 1961 SCC OnLine All 329
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Bar; but the maintenance of a proper atmosphere for the efficient
working of the Court and upholding the dignity and prestige of the
Court are the privilege as well as the duty of the Bar.
96. In Vinay Chandra Mishra20, the Hon’ ble Supreme Court
reminded the profession that brazenness is not outspokenness,
arrogance is not fearlessness, use of intemperate language is not
assertion of right, and threat is not argument. Those words deserve
to be remembered in every Court hall.
97. This Court is not, in this order, pronouncing upon the
ultimate culpability of the petitioners. That is not the exercise
presently undertaken. But this Court must declare, in unmistakable
terms, that any collective attempt by advocates or office bearers
of a Bar Association to overbear a Presiding Officer, to insist
upon a particular judicial order, or to interrupt the course of a
hearing in a manner unbecoming of officers of the Court, cannot
be treated as protected professional conduct.
20 Supra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
98. The Bar Council Rules themselves draw the boundary. The
Advocates Act, 1961 confers privilege, but that privilege is
inseparably yoked to discipline. The Court’s power to preserve order
in its proceedings is not subordinate to the sensibilities of any
individual or association.
X. Whether This is a Fit Case for Exercise of Inherent
Power:
99. The inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 is
extraordinary, to be used sparingly, and only where intervention is
necessary to prevent palpable abuse of process or secure the ends of
justice.
100. In the present case, this Court is unable to say:
(i)that the impugned proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction;
(ii) that the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence
at all;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
(iii) that the statutory provisions are inapplicable on the
admitted facts; or
(iv) that continuation of the proceedings would, by itself,
amount to abuse of process.
101. On the contrary, the matter involves disputed questions
of fact, existence of contemporaneous material including alleged
CCTV footage, and interpretation of the statutory procedure in the
context of events witnessed by the Court itself. The petitioners will
have every opportunity, in accordance with law, to place their
explanation, rely upon the CCTV footage, contend that no
interruption or insult occurred, point out inconsistencies, and urge
that their conduct did not attract Section 267 BNS, 2023. Those are
all matters which the statutory forum is competent to consider.
102. This Court cannot, by invoking inherent powers, short
circuit such process merely because the petitioners assert that the
matter arose out of misunderstanding or because the institutional
sensitivity of the issue is high. Indeed, the higher the institutional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
stake, the greater the need that the law should be allowed to take its
course.
Findings:
103. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court answers
the points for consideration as follows:
On Point No.(i): The proceedings cannot be held, at this stage,
to be without jurisdiction on the ground of timing. The distinction
between “court working hours” and “rising of the Court” is a
plausible and legally sustainable distinction, and the respondent’s
case is that cognizance was taken on the same day before the Court
rose.
On Point No.(ii): The allegations in the proceedings and counter
affidavit cannot be said to be so vague or deficient as to warrant
quashment. Whether the ingredients of Section 267 BNS, 2023 are
ultimately made out is a matter for adjudication in the statutory
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
On Point No.(iii): Though certain expressions employed in the
proceedings may be stronger, they do not, at this stage, render the
entire action void for predetermination or bias so as to justify
exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
On Point No.(iv): The challenge to the order dated 11.02.2026
also does not merit interference at this stage. The issue of personal
appearance and regulated legal assistance in proceedings under
Section 384 BNSS, 2023 must be worked out in accordance with law
within the pending proceedings.
On Point No.(v): This is not a fit case for exercise of inherent
power under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. The petitions are premature
and devoid of merit.
Epilogue:
104. Before parting with the matter, this Court deems it proper
to observe that the justice delivery system cannot function in an
atmosphere of mutual suspicion between the Bar and the Bench.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
The answer, however, is not institutional indulgence at the cost of
discipline. Nor can judicial process be stifled under the plea of
preserving harmony. True harmony rests not on silence about
misconduct, but on restoration of principled boundaries.
105. An advocate is not a mere agent of the litigant. He is an
officer of the Court. The Court, in turn, is not an adversary of the
Bar. The dignity of one sustains the honour of the other. If the Bar
fails in restraint, the institution suffers; if the Bench fails in fairness,
the institution suffers equally. The law, therefore, expects both to
remain within their constitutional and professional discipline.
106. In the present case, this Court finds no justification to
quash the proceedings in their inception. The learned Judicial
Magistrate shall proceed strictly in accordance with the statutory
framework of Sections 384, 385, and 387 BNSS, 2023,
uninfluenced by any observation in this order on the factual merits
of the allegations. Equally, the petitioners shall be at liberty to place
all their factual and legal objections before the learned Magistrate.
This Court trusts and expects that all concerned will remember that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
the majesty of law is not upheld by victory of one side over another,
but by disciplined fidelity to institutional norms.
107.In this context, this Court deems it appropriate to place
on record its considered appreciation of the conduct of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, Ms. Lakshmi Priya. A young
judicial officer and a first generation graduate from the School of
Excellence in Law, Chennai, she has stood firm before this Court,
displaying commendable fortitude and composure in the face of
considerable pressure. Unmoved by attempts, whether overt or
subtle, to dilute institutional authority in the guise of compromise or
conciliatory overtures, she has chosen instead to uphold the majesty
of the law and the dignity of the judicial office she adorns.
108. Her steadfast adherence to duty, marked by
independence of mind and clarity of purpose, reflects the finest
traditions of the judiciary acting without fear or favour, affection or
ill will. In an era where the resilience of institutions is often tested, it
is officers of such character who reinforce the very foundations of
the justice delivery system.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
109. The strength, sanctity, and enduring credibility of the
constitutional courts are inextricably linked to the manner in which
such upright and earnest judicial officers are protected, encouraged,
and emboldened in the righteous discharge of their functions. They
are not merely functionaries within the system, but its living
conscience. This Court, therefore, records its deep appreciation of
Ms. Lakshmi Priya, learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, for
her fearlessness, integrity, and unwavering commitment to judicial
duty. Officers of her calibre are indeed the invaluable assets of the
judiciary worthy inheritors of the noble legacy of justice, reminiscent
of the timeless ideals embodied in the land of Manu Neethi Cholan.
110. In the result, Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624
and 4711 of 2026 are dismissed. Consequently, all connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
CRL OP(MD)No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
