he is a practitioner of law. If a practitioner of law is seeking to use the
platform of High Court for purposes of gaining popularity and publicity, so
that he will be able to attract more number of clients, if not the alleged
victims themselves in this case, it would amount to an unethical practice of
soliciting work on one's part. When once the Code of Conduct is prescribed by
the Bar Council of India to be always adhered to and followed by every
practitioner of law, any attempt to overreach the situation and also to
breach it, even in an indirect manner, as has been done in the present case,
it must attract necessary corrective action.
We therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench to
place a copy of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in this case
before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry at Chennai for initiating
necessary action for the breach of Code of Ethics and professional conduct by
the writ petitioner. In the event the Bar Council agrees with our prima facie
opinion that the writ petition is instituted by a practicing lawyer, seeking
publicity and mileage for his professional activity rather than propelled by
genuine desire to protect the larger public-good and interest, the Bar
Council shall take appropriate action. We hope and trust that the Bar
Council will be placing its 'action taken report' before this Court within a
period of six months.
6.Often times, we have been noticing that the Print and
Electronic Media is carrying on publication of the names of legal
practitioners as well as the names of the Judges of the High Court concerned,
who dealt with particular cases, publication of names of practitioners who
may have appeared for one party or the other in a particular case can lead to
an indirect method of soliciting or indulging in advertisement of the
professional abilities or skills of the advocates. We, therefore, direct the
Registrar (Administration) of this Bench to immediately circulate
instructions to all Print, Electronic and Media Houses not to publish the
names of the practitioners as part of news item.
7.We also direct, for the present, the Registrar (Administration)
to request the Print, Electronic and Media House, not to publish the
individual names of the Judges unless it is so essentially required. The
reason being every Judge of the High Court is carrying on with his work
sitting in a particular division/roster as assigned by My Lord The Hon'ble
Chief Justice. The Judges do perform their duties dispassionately and to the
extent possible by not allowing their individual notions and philosophies to
be a guiding factor in deciding the causes brought before them. Therefore,
we feel that the names of the Judges should not be published and on the other
hand, the name of the High Court alone should be published.
8.We further direct the Registrar (Administration) to place this
matter before My Lord The Hon'ble Chief Justice, so that appropriate
instructions can be issued in this regard by My Lord The Hon'ble Chief
Justice.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Writ Petition (MD) No.15480 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.11379 to 11381 of 2016
S.Baskar Mathuram ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
The petitioner Sri.S.Baskar Mathuram, S/o.Seenivasan, resident of
5/107, Ayothi Complex, near Kasim Residency, Melur Main Road, Madurai,
instituted this writ petition.
2.Respondents 1 to 10 are the State of Tamil Nadu and various
other officers of it. Respondents 11 to 13 are impleaded in eo nomine
capacity. They are, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti Police
Station, Madurai District, The Inspector of Police, Ezhumalai Circle Police
Station, Madurai District and The Sub Inspector of Police, M.Kallupatti
Police Station, Madurai District.
3.The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows:-
?Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records
pertaining to the First Information Report in Cr.No.81 of 2016 on the file of
the 10th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently
i)to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to adequately compensate the
innocent children who have been affected by the illegal registration of the
First Information Report in Crime No.81 of 2016 on the file of the 10th
respondent.
ii)to direct the 5th respondent to take appropriate steps to
declare and notify Usilampatti and Peraiyur Sub Divisions, Madurai District
to be an untouchability prone area and appoint a Special Officer under Rule
10 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules 1995 to carry out rehabilitation works relating to the proper
implementation of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and prevent, avoid re-occurrence of
atrocity in that area.
(iii)to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to deploy armed forces in
Usilampatti and Peraiyur Sub Divisions of Madurai District.
(iv)to direct the 9th and 10th respondents to register a criminal
case against the respondents 11 to 13 under the provisions of Section 3(1)(p)
of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 as amended in 2015 and
(v)to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to forbear the respondents
11 to 13 from conducting any investigation in any of the cases forthwith.?
4.The whole basis for instituting this writ petition seeking
extravagant reliefs appears to be an unfortunate incident which is alleged to
have taken place on 05.08.2016 in some remote rural area of this part of the
State. It appears that a complaint was lodged by one of the victims' parents
on 06.08.2016 which the Police viz., M.Kallupatti Police Station, have
registered promptly and have also taken up the matter for investigation. It
appears that some of the newspapers also carried a news item, on 07.08.2016.
That inspired the writ petitioner to file this writ petition. It appears that
he is a practitioner of law. If a practitioner of law is seeking to use the
platform of High Court for purposes of gaining popularity and publicity, so
that he will be able to attract more number of clients, if not the alleged
victims themselves in this case, it would amount to an unethical practice of
soliciting work on one's part. When once the Code of Conduct is prescribed by
the Bar Council of India to be always adhered to and followed by every
practitioner of law, any attempt to overreach the situation and also to
breach it, even in an indirect manner, as has been done in the present case,
it must attract necessary corrective action.
5.We therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench to
place a copy of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in this case
before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry at Chennai for initiating
necessary action for the breach of Code of Ethics and professional conduct by
the writ petitioner. In the event the Bar Council agrees with our prima facie
opinion that the writ petition is instituted by a practicing lawyer, seeking
publicity and mileage for his professional activity rather than propelled by
genuine desire to protect the larger public-good and interest, the Bar
Council shall take appropriate action. We hope and trust that the Bar
Council will be placing its 'action taken report' before this Court within a
period of six months.
6.Often times, we have been noticing that the Print and
Electronic Media is carrying on publication of the names of legal
practitioners as well as the names of the Judges of the High Court concerned,
who dealt with particular cases, publication of names of practitioners who
may have appeared for one party or the other in a particular case can lead to
an indirect method of soliciting or indulging in advertisement of the
professional abilities or skills of the advocates. We, therefore, direct the
Registrar (Administration) of this Bench to immediately circulate
instructions to all Print, Electronic and Media Houses not to publish the
names of the practitioners as part of news item.
7.We also direct, for the present, the Registrar (Administration)
to request the Print, Electronic and Media House, not to publish the
individual names of the Judges unless it is so essentially required. The
reason being every Judge of the High Court is carrying on with his work
sitting in a particular division/roster as assigned by My Lord The Hon'ble
Chief Justice. The Judges do perform their duties dispassionately and to the
extent possible by not allowing their individual notions and philosophies to
be a guiding factor in deciding the causes brought before them. Therefore,
we feel that the names of the Judges should not be published and on the other
hand, the name of the High Court alone should be published.
8.We further direct the Registrar (Administration) to place this
matter before My Lord The Hon'ble Chief Justice, so that appropriate
instructions can be issued in this regard by My Lord The Hon'ble Chief
Justice.
9.This writ petition is instituted by S.Baskar Mathuram,
S/o.Seenivasan, resident of 5/107, Ayothi Complex, near Kasim Residency,
Melur Main Road, Madurai in the name of Public Interest Litigation whereas,
we find it otherwise.
10.Be that as it may, during the course of hearing of this writ
petition, learned Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 10 and he was also assisted by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police to whom the investigation work has been entrusted by the
Superintendent of Police, Madurai District as well as the concerned Inspector
of Police.
11.We do not propose to refer extensively to the contents of the
case diary. We have gone through very carefully and meticulously a bunch of
papers which have been tagged without giving them any serial number beyond
page 131. We found a report of a four member Child Welfare Committee has
examined the entire matter in considerable detail and they have recorded
findings at page No.14 of their report. The Committee recorded their prima
facie opinion that the story forming part of the FIR is a 'fabricated one'
and thus implying that it is the result of fertile imagination of someone.
Shockingly, the Committee has also recorded its prima facie opinion that the
Police have registered the FIR coming under pressure from a community leader
who also incidentally happened to be a practitioner of law. We therefore,
consider that intervention of this Court is not called for in the matter and
the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District shall monitor the entire
follow up action strictly in accordance with law and will spare no person
whatsoever and deal with all people concerned for creating false and
fabricated stories, strictly in accordance with law.
12.We take this opportunity to remind the State Government to put
in place a policy decision to ensure that the Print and Electronic Media does
not while reporting instances of similar nature from furnishing any details
which are capable of enabling the readers or general public to come to know
of the identity of either the victims or those juveniles who are in conflict
with law.
13.We hope and trust necessary decision would be taken at the
earliest, preferably, within the next thirty days and the same will be
adhered to by the Print and Electronic Media, henceforth.
14.It shall also be open to the State/Police to take up the
matter with the concerned, including Press Council of India, for the reports
which have appeared in a section of the press which is likely to lead anyone
to clearly identify the victims or the alleged juveniles who are in conflict
with law.
15.The writ petition stands dismissed subject to what has already
been ordered by us. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)Nos.11379 to 11381 of
2016 are closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment