The right of advocates to practice law is protected under the Advocates Act, and abuse of legal process against them undermines justice.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that 1^st petitioner is a seasoned Advocate with 27 years of experience. He has been subjected to unwarranted harassment and false allegations by the 12^th respondent. Despite diligently representing the respondent in civil cases, the 1^st petitioner faced verbal abuse and violence when advising the 12^th respondent on unrelated criminal matters. After severing professional ties, the 12^th respondent trespassed into the 1^st petitioner's office in the presence of petitioners 2 and 3, vandalizing property and started filing numerous baseless complaints before various authorities, leading to criminal charges.

2. Investigations consistently exonerated the 1^st petitioner, revealing a pattern of malicious intent. This behaviour extends beyond the 1^st petitioner, targeting other reputable individuals, Advocates, Police officials, 1^st petitioner's clients, etc. This highlights the urgent need to address such harassment and false accusations, emphasizing the importance of integrity and justice within legal proceedings.

3. This egregious behaviour of the 12^th respondent, extending over nine years, flagrantly violates the petitioners' constitutional rights, including those enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20 and 21. The 12^th respondent's actions infringe upon the petitioners' right to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21. Yet law enforcement authorities have failed to intervene effectively. The 1^st petitioner, an Advocate, who is a deemed officer of this Court, now finds it hard to carry out duties because of this atrocities instigated by the 12^th respondent.

4. Moreover, the filing of unfounded complaints lacking substantiating evidence, amounts to abuse of the legal process. Given the absence of specific laws safeguarding Advocates from such harassment, the Court's intervention is warranted to address this grave injustice, contends the petitioner. Despite repeated Court's observations against the 12^th respondent, responsible officers' failure to prevent such false litigations underscores the urgent need for legal recourse. The illegal actions of the 12^th respondent gravely obstruct the 1^st petitioner's right to practise law.

5. Such actions, perpetrated by the 12^th respondent, flagrantly violate the provision of Section 30 of the Advocates Act , which safeguards the rights of Advocates to carry out their professional duties unhindered. As per Section 6(d) of the , the Bar Council is having the duty and responsibility to safeguard the rights, privileges and interest of the Advocates, but it is denied in the present case to the 1^st petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1, 2 and 7 to 10, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 13 and the learned counsel appearing for the 12^th respondent.

7. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 17.11.2025, this Court passed an interim order to the following effect:

“Having gone through the pleadings, the counter affidavit, the documents on record and on hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State, the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court and the learned Counsel appearing for the 12^th respondent, I find prima facie substance in the contention that the complaints filed by the 12^th respondent repeatedly amounts to abuse of process of court. The problem is that there is no provision for preventing persons like the 12^th respondent from approaching the Police or the Court repeatedly raising the same allegations. The solution lies in the court imposing cost or taking appropriate action if the allegations in the complaint are ultim