NEW DELHI: The interim report submitted by Justice B N Srikrishna on the clash between the advocates and police on the premises of the Madras High Court on February 19, rapped the advocates for their hooliganism, police for their excessive use of force and the judges for their soft-pedaling on the issue.
Justice Srikrishna, who submitted his report to the Supreme Court on Thursday, clearly elucidated on what transpired in Chennai on February 19, providing the background and the stages that led to the flashpoint.
While summing up, Justice Srikrishna said: “In my view, albeit prima facie, the soft-pedaling policy followed by the Madras High Court judges has led to the present piquant situation. The lawyers appear to have been encouraged by the wrong signals sent out and seemed to think that they could do anything and get away within the court premises." Justice Srikrishna went on to say: “Regretfully, far from being the upholders of the rule of law, the lawyers seem to have behaved as hooligans and miscreants.
The incidents that transpired over the last month or so make it clear that the lawyers seemed to be under the impression that because they are officers of the court, they are immune from the process of law and that they could get away with any unlawful act without being answerable to the law enforcing agency.” “It is most unfortunate that the soft policy adopted by the Acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court and its administration sent out clearly a wrong message that encouraged and emboldened the lawyers into becoming law breakers. Undoubtedly, the political cross currents from the Sri Lankan Tamil issues and caste-based issues contributed to and aggravated the situation.
It should have been made clear to the lawyers from the beginning, in no uncertain terms that whatever their political ideologies, the court premises could not be utilised for airing them,” the retired judge of the apex court pointed out.
Justice Srikrishna said there is no material suggesting that any of the officers had directed or ordered the policemen to behave in the atrocious manner in which they behaved.
The judge said: “As enforcers of law, the policemen are entitled to use such force as is commensurate with the danger that they apprehend. In my view, the circumstances facing the police on the fateful day of February 19, 2009, without doubt, justified quelling the unruly and rioting mob of advocates by use of force, but the police went much beyond what was permissible use of force.” “They (policemen) indulged in wanton lathi blows to lawyers who were not even resisting or being violent, wanton destruction of property, both inside the compound as well as on the court premises and then in the chambers of lawyers inside and outside the court complex.
The conduct of the police in entering the court rooms and damaging the furniture and articles therein, entering the chambers of the lawyers in the High Court premises and finally in barging into the chambers of the lawyers away from the High Court premises and beating them and causing damage is utterly despicable and needs to be roundly condemned,” Justice Srikrishna wrote.
Concluding his report, Justice Srikrishna said: “Supreme Court should take this opportunity to exercise its extraordinary constitutional powers and lay down sufficient guidelines for the behaviour of the lawyers within and outside the court premises as the Bar Councils have not been acting as an effective regulatory body of their professional conduct. It would be ideal if the Advocates Act is amended.”