‘Ask a woman’: Quoting Margaret Thatcher, Madras High Court lauds young judge who stood firm amid lawyers’ disruption

The order, dated April 30, went on, “Faced with a charged atmosphere and competing pressures, she did not yield to expediency, nor retreat into silence, but acted with resolute determination to uphold the dignity and authority of the institution she represents. What may be perceived by some as stubbornness, this Court views as principled firmness, an essential attribute in the discharge of judicial duty.”

“The strength of the justice delivery system does not lie merely in statutes and precedents, but in the character of those entrusted with their application. It is through such unwavering commitment, particularly by those at the very threshold of their judicial journey, that institutional integrity is preserved and public confidence is sustained,” the Madras High Court added.

Remand matter

The issue before the Madras High Court relates to an incident on January 19, when the Madurai judicial officer had risen for the day at around 6.05 pm, when a lawyer came with a plea relating to the purported illegal detention of his client by the police the same day.

It came on the high court’s record that the judge, upon examining the matter placed before her, and without rejecting it, directed the station house officer (SHO) of the police station concerned to appear before the court at around 10.30 am the next day, when she also directed the matter to be listed as the first case.

The judge claimed before the Madras High Court that despite her directions, the lawyer and his juniors came to the open court and screamed at a member of the court staff, even as the CCTV captured it.

On January 20, the judge claimed that when the matter was called, neither the petitioner nor the counsel was present, and therefore the matter was adjourned.

Later, at around 10.35 am, the police produced a remand requisition, in which the very same person referred to in the earlier petition was shown as an accused.

According to the judge, at the relevant time, several lawyers, including the counsel for the accused, the local Bar president, secretary, treasurer, and other members of the Bar, were present in the court hall. It is alleged that, instead of permitting the remand proceedings to continue in an orderly fashion, the Bar office-bearers and others collectively intervened, insisted that the court should not proceed with the remand, and sought to dictate the order to be passed.

The judicial officer alleged that despite her clarification that the petition under Section 100 (search for persons wrongfully confined) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 had been registered, listed, called, and passed over owing to non-representation, the petitioners continued to interrupt the proceedings and insisted that the accused should not be remanded, on the plea that remand would render the Section 100 petition infructuous.

According to the judge, despite repeated directions that submissions should be made one at a time, her court proceedings were collectively disrupted, besides being sought to be overawed.

She alleged being constrained to rise from the dais, retire to chambers, and later resume work, and that, even thereafter, interruptions continued, impacting about 160 pending cases for which witnesses were present. The judicial officer was compelled to defer the remand proceedings and take up other court business, the Madras High Court was informed.

Opposite side’s contentions

• The petitioners or the lawyers concerned contended before the Madras High Court that there is no specific overt act attributed to each one of them, and that the allegations were “vague, omnibus, and bereft of particulars”.
• Mandatory procedure under BNSS Section 384 (procedure in certain cases of contempt) has been violated, since cognisance was not taken before the rising of the court on the same day, but only subsequently, and the notices were issued the next day.
• Magistrate did not conclude the matter in the manner contemplated by BNSS Section 384, and the only permissible course was to act under Section 385 (procedure where court considers that case should not be dealt with under Section 384) by forwarding the matter to another court.
• The judge repeatedly used the term “offenders” and the recital in the proceedings that they had committed an offence demonstrates predetermination and bias, thereby vitiating the entire process.
• The present issue has arisen out of a misunderstanding between the members of the Bar and the Bench, the Madras High Court was told.
• Matter requires a harmonious and forward-looking resolution rather than adversarial adjudication.
• Petitioners, being senior members and office-bearers of the Bar Association, had entered the court only for the limited purpose of making a representation in the interest of the Bar and not with any intention to interfere with the judicial proceedings or to show any disrespect.

Court’s findings

• Not a fit case for exercise of inherent power under BNSS Section 528. The petitions are premature and devoid of merit, the Madras High Court found.
• It is not a mere private quarrel between an individual judicial officer and certain members of the Bar. Nor can it be reduced to a passing misunderstanding.
• At its heart lies a question of great institutional significance: to what extent can members of the Bar, individually or collectively, intervene in proceedings pending before a court.
• An advocate is not a mere agent of the litigant, he is an officer of the court. The court, in turn, is not an adversary of the Bar. They are partners in the administration of justice.
• The dignity of one sustains the honour of the other. If the Bar fails in restraint, the institution suffers; if the Bench fails in fairness, the institution suffers equally.

• The law, therefore, expects both to remain within their constitutional and professional discipline, the Madras High Court noted.
• The closer the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, the greater the duty to preserve its dignity.
• In the present case, this court finds no justification to quash the proceedings in their inception.
• The judicial magistrate shall proceed strictly in accordance with the statutory framework of BNSS sections 384, 385, and 387, uninfluenced by any observation in this order on the factual merits of the allegations, the Madras High Court said.
• Equally, the petitioners shall be at liberty to place all their factual and legal objections before the magistrate.
• This court trusts and expects that all concerned will remember that the majesty of law is not upheld by the victory of one side over another, but by disciplined fidelity to institutional norms.

Word of appreciation

The Madras High Court found it appropriate to put on record its appreciation of the conduct of the Judicial Magistrate V, Madurai, Lakshmi Priya, whom it referred to as “a young judicial officer and a first-generation graduate from the School of Excellence in Law, Chennai. She has stood firm before this Court, displaying commendable fortitude and composure in the face of considerable pressure”.

“Unmoved by attempts, whether overt or subtle, to dilute institutional authority in the guise of compromise or conciliatory overtures, she has chosen instead to uphold the majesty of the law and the dignity of the judicial office she adorns. Her steadfast adherence to duty, marked by independence of mind and clarity of purpose, reflects the finest traditions of the judiciary acting without fear or favour, affection or ill will,” the order said.

Justice Gowri continued, “In an era where the resilience of institutions is often tested, it is officers of such character who reinforce the very foundations of the justice delivery system.”