IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that advocates cannot use military or academic titles as prefixes or suffixes in legal practice, ensuring equality and integrity in the profession.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to make thorough enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2024 and consequently take appropriate action on the same.

The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry based on the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 22.03.2024 and initiate appropriate action.

2. The complaint registered by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent / Mr.S.Ganesan on 22.03.2024 reveals that a criminal case has been registered against the 2nd respondent by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Prosecution Unit, Air Cargo Commissionerate. The charge against the 2nd respondent was smuggling of Gold Bars inside the Airport campus. The Discharge Petition filed by the 2nd respondent was allowed. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs preferred Crl.R.C.No.372 of 2022 and the High Court of Madras allowed the Criminal Revision Case on 14.07.2022. Consequently, the criminal case registered against the 2nd respondent was restored on file. Now the said case is pending on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Customs, Alandur.

3. During the interregnum period of discharge and the order of the High Court in Crl.R.C.No.372 of 2022, the 2nd respondent enrolled himself as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

4. Mrs.S.P.Aarthi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that at the time of submission of application for enrolment as an Advocate no criminal case was pending against the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the enrolment of the 2nd respondent as an Advocate cannot be said to be invalid nor the Bar Council can initiate actions.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further raised an allegation against the 2nd respondent that he is now practising as a lawyer in the Madras High Court and other Courts. He is using the title “ Lieutenant Colonel” as prefix to his name in all cases filings, vakalatnama, etc. His name has been published in the cause list as “ Lieutenant Colonel S.Ganesan”. Using the title “ Lieutenant Colonel” as prefix to his name is not permitted and he is abusing his position as a retired Lieutenant Colonel. The complaint filed against such abuse before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has not been looked into. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

6. Mrs.S.P.Aarthi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would oppose by stating that the enrolment of the 2nd respondent as an Advocate was properly made and usage of title “Lieutenant Colonel” as prefix is not prohibited under Article 18 (1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no prohibition for using the title “Lieutenant Colonel” as prefix to his name in vakalat and case filings can be made as there is no impediment.

7. Mr.K.Mahalingam, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by using the prefix Lieutenant Colonel, the 2nd respondent is threatening the petitioner in Court campus. Therefore, actions are to be initiated.

8. We have examined the usage of title “Lieutenant Colonel” as prefix his his name in case filings in Courts and in vakalatnama and in Court proceedings.

9. Article 18(1) stipulates “No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State”. The Constitution prohibited conferment of title by the State in order to bridled with the colonial practice of awarding title of nobility. Article 18 do not speak about usage of military title or tile of academic distinction as prefix of suffix.

10. Usage of title or distinction as prefix or suffix has been elaborately considered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balaji Raghavan vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 361.

11. Article 18 denotes Abolition of titles but not about usage of title as prefix or s