V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W. Peter Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Preamble
"Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts.
It is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Court make it clear beyond the doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. For in no other way can the Supreme Court and the High Court maintain the high position and exercise the great powers conferred by the Constitution and the law to do justice without fear or favour,
Harish Uppal (Ex.Capt) Vs. Union of India reported in [2003 (2) SCC 45]
Harish Uppal (Ex.Capt.) Vs. Union of India [2003 (2) SCC 45]
Bar Association vs. Union of India [1998 (4) SCC 409]
In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra [1995 (2) SCC 584]
Pravin C. Shah vs. KA.Mohd. Ali [2001 (8) SCC 650]
Sukdev Singh vs. Hon’ble C.J. Teja Singh [AIR 1954 SC 186]
In Re.Vinay Chandra Mishra [1995 (2) SCC 584]
India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd.
In Re Vinay Chandra Mishra [1995 (2) SCC 584]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.