Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The High Court of Madras held that due to various negative conduct by the practitioners, the reputation of the profession reduces. The court accepted the fact that due to various criticism outside this profession, further conduct of law practitioners adds more cynicism to the profession. In re V.K Kumaresan V. Jayaseelan and Anr, the cause of action arose when the respondent who is a medical practitioner rented a house to the petitioner who was a lawyer. The petitioner who was irregular in paying his rent was made forced to file an RCOP by the respondent. It has been held that the petitioner was adopting certain illicit methodologies to postpone the case before the Rent Control Authorities.
On observation the court held that such an illicit act done by the petitioner who is in profession of law was saddening. The court also contended that the such persons in the profession bags criticism in the public. The court called the petitioner as ‘venom’ and held that such a person inside the Bar shall instigate others to perform the said illicit act which was not welcomed by the court. the court instanced the said act as a drop of venom into a bowl of milk shall make the whole mike poisonous. The court also reiterated by saying that the lawyers are the pleaders of justice and held that such an act shall not be tolerated under the eyes of law. The petitioner instead of being the promoter of law was acting and guiding the public on how to break the law is not commendable held the court. the court also held that legal ethics of the profession must make the advocate avoiding the client not to break the law but unfortunately the advocate is in the place doing so.
Such an act is an mockery to the court and to the profession held the court. The court also mentioned some great leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and so who had fought and sacrificed their lives for the purpose of serving justice and such an act serves no purpose to sacrifices. Thus, the court directed the petitioner to vacate the house within two weeks and also gave the respondent the liberty to file a complaint against the said lawyer before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. In the words of the court it held that “It is apposite to state that law profession is already under severe criticism and due to the activities of lawyers in this State, it further started diminishing its reputation among public. If the tenant, like petitioner / Advocate is allowed to occupy the premises, a situation may arise, when no owner will rent out his building to an Advocate and in that event, people will definitely lose their faith in the justice delivery system.
Unless such person with unprofessional conduct is dealt with an iron hand, the noble profession cannot be safeguarded and if this kind of Advocate is not taught a lesson, it will definitely set a bad precedent to the Public and create a bad image about Lawyers in the society, as the person like the petitioner ought to be nipped at the bud itself and it is for the Bar Council to decide on the same.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824