Madras High Court Ruling on Advocates’ Protests
The Madras High Court recently clarified the boundaries within which advocates can operate during protests. While the court acknowledged the right of advocates to peacefully demonstrate against the arrest of their peers, it asserted that they cannot impede law enforcement from presenting the accused in court. This ruling was delivered by Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy in the case of Ajith Kumar Vs State.
Petition Filed by Ten Lawyers
The decision came in response to a petition filed by ten lawyers seeking the dismissal of a criminal case against them. They were charged for organizing protests against the arrest of two fellow advocates and allegedly obstructing police efforts to present the accused before a trial court. The protesting lawyers contended that the arrests were arbitrary, linked to a two-year-old drug-related incident.
Court’s Observations on Obstruction and Protest
On August 5, the court observed that while peaceful protests are within legal rights, any act of obstruction against law enforcement’s duty to produce an accused for remand constitutes an offense. The court emphasized the need for advocates, who suspect police misconduct, to seek redress by appearing before the court where the accused is presented and opposing the remand proceedings.
Justice Chakravarthy stated, “When the Police wanted to produce the two Advocates, namely, Dinesh and Neeraj, before the Court of law, even if the excess was committed against the Advocates, the lawful way is to appear before the Court before which they are produced, voice their objection, appeal to the learned Presiding Officer not to accept the remand, and seek lawful remedies.”
Decision to Quash FIR
The court agreed to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against the ten lawyers on the condition that they submit an affidavit apologizing for hindering the police. The incident involved protests within the Madras High Court premises in November 2023, following the arrest of advocates Dinesh and Neeraj by the Sathankadu Police under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
More Read
The prosecution accused the petitioners of obstructing police duties despite warnings, a claim backed by video evidence reviewed by the High Court’s Security Committee. Consequently, a complaint was filed by the Registrar (Administration), leading to an FIR under Sections 186, 152, and 225 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Conditional Relief and Legal Representation
Justice Chakravarthy acknowledged the right of advocates to peacefully protest but noted that the current protest exceeded permissible limits. Although the court found a prima facie case under Section 225 IPC regarding obstruction to lawful apprehension, it chose to quash the FIR, considering the circumstances like the subsequent bail of the arrested advocates and the absence of a final report. The quashing is conditional on each petitioner submitting an affidavit within ten working days, expressing regret for their conduct during the protest.
Failure to file the affidavit would allow the prosecution to continue under Section 225 IPC. The petitioners were represented by Advocate RC Paul Kanagaraj, while the State was represented by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) M Mohamed Riyaz.
More Read
[Read Judgment]
