Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH, LAKSHMINARAYANAN
R. Jim – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court analysis and observations on jurisdiction and legality (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 4. understanding the advocates act and disciplinary processes (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 5. final decision on interim suspension power (Para 122 , 123) |
ORDER :
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Factual Background :-
The petitioner is an Advocate. He claims that he has been practising before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and before the Courts and Tribunals in the District of Tirunelveli for over 13 years.
2.A group of Advocates in Tirunelveli District formed a whatsapp group titled
The petitioner alleges, on 03.05.2024, an Advocate by name, A.Siva Subramanian posted a highly derogatory message against a particular religion and had also posted a message seeped in hatred. The petitioner, being a part of that whatsapp group, made a request calling upon the group members not to post messag
The Bar Council lacks the authority to impose interim suspension on an Advocate pending disciplinary proceedings, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates adherence to due process and principle....
The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring ....
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Const....
The Bar Council can initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against advocates for misconduct, and the procedural requirements under Section 35 of the Advocates Act are not overly restrictive.
The court upheld the Bar Council's authority to suspend an advocate's practice during disciplinary proceedings based on serious criminal allegations, emphasizing the need for maintaining professional....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
