MADURAI: Refusing to quash the contempt proceedings initiated by a judicial magistrate against a group of advocates for disrupting court proceedings, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that such attempts to overbear a presiding officer, to insist upon a particular judicial order, or to interrupt the course of a hearing, cannot be treated as protected professional conduct.
Justice L Victoria Gowri further expressed deep appreciation for the Judicial Magistrate No. V, of Madurai, Lakshmi Priya, for her fearlessness, integrity, and unwavering commitment to judicial duty. “Officers of her calibre are worthy inheritors of the noble legacy of justice, reminiscent of ideals embodied in the land of Manu Neethi Cholan,” the judge said.
The judge made the observations while dismissing petitions filed by four advocates seeking to quash the show cause notices issued to them under Section 384 of BNSS and an order directing their personal appearance before the court.
According to the prosecution, on January 19, after 6 pm, one of the petitioners had moved a petition alleging wrongful detention of his client by the SS Colony police. The magistrate instructed the station house officer to appear before the court the next day and took up the matter as the first case the following morning.
Since no one represented the petitioner, the case was passed over. When the police filed an application seeking remand of the accused, the petitioners allegedly entered the court and disrupted proceedings, demanding that the court should not hear the remand application as it would render their petition infructuous.
The magistrate initiated the contempt proceedings, citing aggressive conduct of advocates. The advocates denied the allegations, saying the requirement to initiate proceedings ‘before the rising of the court’ the same day was not satisfied, as they were issued with the show cause notices only the next day.
They said they were willing to resolve the matter amicably through an in-camera interaction. The magistrate rejected the proposal, saying it would send a wrong message that court proceedings can be influenced through intimidation. She also contended that the proceedings were initiated before the rising of the court.
Hearing both sides, the judge observed that the petitions were premature and refused to quash the proceedings.