The main legal point established in the judgment is that a pleader's actions, if found to constitute misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act, may warrant disciplinary action, even if the actions are not committed in a professional capacity.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The respondent is a pleader who was practising in Madura. On the 18th November, 1942, he was convicted by the City Magistrate of Madura of an offence under Rule 34 (6) (c) of the Defence of India Rules and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months. Rule 34 (6) defines what is a prejudicial act and Clause (c) says it is a prejudicial act to render a member of His Majestys forces or a public servant incapable of efficiently performing his duties as such, or to induce a member of His Majestys forces or a public servant to fail in the performance of his duties as such. Rule 38 (1) (a) says that no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, do a prejudicial act and Sub-rule (5) says that if a person contravenes any of the provisions of the rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.

2. On the 12th October, 1942, the respondent wrote to the District Magistrate of Madura enclosing a pamphlet, which was headed " the duty of a faithful and responsible British Official of the Government of India." The pamphlet called upon the British Government to quit India "here and now." In the covering letter the respondent said,

I hereby intimate to you that I am going to carry on the Quit. India propaganda on the lines contained in the leaflet herewith annexed and for the reasons stated" therein, I request you to Quit India here and now.

The Ramnad District Board had been suspended and a special officer appointed to carry out its duties. The respondent also sent a copy of the pamphlet to the special officer and wrote to him the following letter:

The leaflet herewith sent will show how necessary it is that power should be transferred to the people of India. The District Board which passed the resolution disapproving the act of the Government in having arrested the leaders responsible for the passing of All India Congress Committee resolution has been superseded. Your taking charge of the administration as appointee of the Government in the place of the peoples representative will only aggravate the anti-Government feeling and I therefore request that you resign your post immediately.

The prosecution was based on the pamphlet and these letters. The Magistrate held that in sending the pamphlet and letters the respondent had done a prejudicial act which was punishable under the Defence of India Rules. The validity of the conviction is not open to question in this Court. The conviction having been brought to its notice this Court called upon the respondent under Section 13 (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

3. When the pamphlet was sent to the officers mentioned many parts of India were in a very agitated state. Riots had broken out and there was considerable destruction of Government and Railway property. In addition there was threat of an invasion of India by Japan. The Court is not concerned with political opinions unless the expression of them involves the committing of an offence, or constitutes conduct improper on the part of a legal practitioner, who is a part of the machinery for the administration of justice. The object of writing these letters, and sending copies of the pamphlet was to induce responsible officials to leave their posts and thereby contribute to the breakdown of the machinery of Government. It would have been a very serious matter so far law and order was concerned if the District Magistrate of Madura had at this juncture quitted his post and the same remark applies to the special officer appointed to carry on the duties of the District Board. In my opinion there is no doubt that the respondent did something which he should not have done as a member of the legal profession and that he is liable to disciplinary action under the Legal Practitioners Act. If there were any doubt on this question, it would be set