R KAARUPPAN Vs. R DHANAPALRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important issue as to whether an Advocate, who has been found guilty for contempt of Court, could be prevented by the State Bar council from appearing in Court, till such time he purges the act of contempt has arisen for consideration. For a decision on the said issue, a glance of the role and responsibility of an Advocate, the duty of the Bar Council vis-' ; -vis the majesty of the judiciary as an institution for a free and fair administration of justice must first be discussed.

(2.) WHILE considering the petition for interim orders, I had discussed the issue in my order dated 18. 11. 2004. I deem it necessary to reiterate the same in this order. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law and if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts should be respected and protected. It is for this reason the Courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those for contempt of court who indulge in acts whether inside or outside Courts which tend to undermine the authority of the Courts and bring them any disrepute and disrespect thereby obstructing them from discharging their judicial duties without fear or favour. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice and as such, no action can be permitted which may shake the very foundation itself.

(3.) MR. R. Kaaruppan, a former President of the renowned and historical Madras High Court Advocates Association, was found guilty under section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of re. 1/= to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment, by a Division Bench of this Court in R. KARUPPAN v. THE PATRON OF chennai RIFLE CLUB, RAJ BHAVAN, CHENNAI AND OTHERS (2004 (1) M. L. J. 153 ). He paid the said fine amount. Again on a suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him, a Full Bench of this Court by an order dated 17. 4. 2004 in Suo Motu contempt Petition No. 1134 of 2003, finding him guilty of contempt for making scurrilous, offensive allegations against the Judges of this Court, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. After observing that the petitioner had abused his professional privileges while practicing as an Advocate and his conduct was highly contumacious and unpardonable, the Full Bench referred the matter to be considered by the State bar Council to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Full Bench also directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the State Bar council for taking appropriate action by following the required procedure. After the judgment was pronounced and at the request of the petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment alone was suspended for eight weeks subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/= by 19. 4. 2004. The petitioner had paid the amount.