Litigant argues case for his lawyer; Madras High Court not amused

Client wanted debar order passed by Bar Council against his advocate quashed

CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, 22/06/2017: The Madras High Court. Photo: B. Jothi Ramalingam

In a classic case of role reversal, a lawyer and his litigant swapped roles recently, with the latter filing and arguing a case before the Madras High Court against a resolution passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) on September 9, 2015, restraining his advocate from practising in any court of law or tribunal.

Disciplinary proceedings

The litigant, A. Sethu, had filed a writ petition in the court with a plea to quash the ex-parte resolution of the BCI, through which his advocate Manikandan Vathan Chettiar and the latter’s junior R. Mathan Kumar were barred from practising law till the disposal of

suo motu disciplinary proceedings initiated against them.

The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the Registrar General of the High Court to list three of his old cases, in which Mr. Chettiar was the counsel on record, for hearing before the judges holding the relevant portfolio, and to permit his lawyer to argue all those cases on behalf of him.

Explaining the reasons for his having approached the court challenging the action initiated against his lawyer, the writ petitioner claimed that Mr. Chettiar was an advocate known for his integrity and professional skills and that was the reason why he had engaged him to conduct three different cases filed in 2010, 2011 and 2014.

Further, pointing out that he had paid professional fee to the advocate for conducting his cases, the litigant claimed that the BCI ought not to have barred his lawyer from practising law without issuing a notice to the latter’s clients. The submissions were made before a Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Abdul Quddhose.

When the judges wanted to know whether the litigant was interested in lodging a complaint against his lawyer for not returning the fees despite not being in a position to conduct his cases, Mr. Sethu, in a “clear and unequivocal” response, stated that he did not intend to file any such complaint against Mr. Chettiar.

After recording his submission, the Bench dismissed the petition, stating: “Clearly, this is a got up proceeding. Respondent No.4 (Mr. Chettiar), as it appears, is using the petitioner to further his cause... The petitioner, in our view, has no locus standi to assail the impugned resolution passed by the Council against respondent No. 4.”