The Madras High Court has directed Madurai Bar Association (MBA) to vacate the hall from which it had been functioning in the district court campus in Madurai for having “failed to maintain the dignity and decorum of the legal profession” by resorting to indefinite boycott of court proceedings in July against the compulsory helmet rule.
The order passed by the High Court’s Registrar General P. Kalaiyarasan comes a week after a section of advocates attempted to lay siege to Court Hall-4 of the Madras High Court as they were denied entry into the hall, where the hearing of the contempt proceedings against two office-bearers of the Madurai District Bar Association was in progress.
The High Court Registry has cancelled the license granted to the association to occupy the premises of the Madurai District Court. Consequently, the Madurai District Bar Association will be treated as “unauthorised” occupant of the premises. The association was also directed to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises to the Principal District Judge, Madurai.
Show cause notice
The Registrar General said that he had issued a show-cause notice to association on July 18 seeking explanation as to why it should not be ordered to vacate the premises since a large section of its members had “failed to discharge their obligation to the litigants as advocates”.
After receiving the notice on July 20, the MBA “instead of sending a reply directly to the Registry, convened a meeting of the association and claimed to have passed a resolution on July 27. The copy of the said resolution was handed over by your association to the Principal District Judge, Madurai, who in turn, forwarded the same to the Registry.”
“Therefore, we have no alternative but to treat the said resolution as your reply to the show cause notice. In the light of what you have resolved, it appears that there is no justification for you to continue to occupy the court premises. The stand taken in the resolution…is unacceptable… As a consequence, you will be treated as an unauthorised occupant henceforth,” the order read.
“Failed to discharge their obligation to the litigants as advocates”
