can lawyers violate law?

Sometimes context is everything. By honestly placing in context the violent incidents involving the police and the lawyers in the Madras High Court on February 19, Justice B.N. Srikrishna provided the Supreme Court with the necessary perspective to deal with a delicate situation. Faced with a group of agitating lawyers who wanted to project the disproportionate use of force by the police against lawyers indulging in violence as an executive vs judiciary ‘constitutional’ issue, the Supreme Court needed to know the whole truth. In his interim report, Justice Srikrishna did his best to present just that. While detailing the background of the ugly events, he pointed to the meetings and demonstrations inside the premises of the High Court from November 2008 by lawyers owing allegiance to the cause of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The “soft policy” adopted by the Acting Chief Justice and the administration of the Madras High Court, he noted, emboldened lawyers to become law-breakers. In the days leading to the February 19 incidents, sections among them indulged in activities that amounted to criminal offences — on the pretext of taking up the Sri Lankan issue.

Ignoring these facts, and merely picking on the police excesses, would not have served the ends of justice. After studying the mass of evidence before him in the form of written submissions, video recordings, and oral statements, Justice Srikrishna concluded that the police initially exercised restraint as the lawyers took to taunting, jeering, gesticulating, and hurling stones. Only after they were given the order to charge at the unruly mob of lawyers did the police use disproportionate force and indulge in wanton destruction of property and vehicles parked on the High Court premises. True, law-enforcers breaking the law is cause for serious concern. But then lawyers attempting to pressure the judiciary to act in their sectional interests and protect fringe groups acting against the law fall in the same category. With lawyers’ associations in political hands, court boycotts were enforced over issues that had no direct relation to the legal fraternity. The higher judiciary therefore needs to act on some of the long-term recommendations of Justice Srikrishna, and lay down guidelines for the behaviour of lawyers within and without the court premises. The Bar Councils, he notes, have not been acting as an effective regulatory body, and the Advocate’s Act should be amended to ensure a better disciplinary mechanism. Otherwise, the lessons will remain unlearnt. Meanwhile, the antagonists must respect the findings of a jurist known for his unbending intellectual integrity and move on, putting all bitterness behind them.