Activist gets on advocates’ case in Bangalore

A social activist is on a mission to discipline unruly lawyers by invoking a September 2002 Supreme Court direction to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to formulate disciplinary guidelines to advocates all over the country.

The BCI passed a resolution following the apex court’s direction to formulate the guidelines. But the guidelines did not see the light of day because the resolution was never implemented.

The apex court’s direction was after hearing a case (Harish Uppal vs. Union of India) pertaining to a batch of petitions against lawyers who went on strike or boycotted courts, as was witnessed in Bangalore earlier this month.

Now, a social activist, Vishwanath Swami has developed a resolve to tame errant lawyers and discipline them by petitioning the high court to invoke the Supreme Court direction to BCI and plead that the guidelines be formulated, which could be relevant for all state bar councils and advocates. This can prohibit them from striking work and affecting litigants, the delivery of justice and the administration of law.

After sustaining injuries in the February 2009 violence at the Madras high court and experiencing how advocates even in the Karnataka high court shunned from representing him as they had indefinitely boycotted courts when he sought legal recourse, Swami is now determined to “discipline the lawyers”.

Even veteran Supreme Court judge, Justice VR Krishna Iyer’s pleas to advocates appear to have fallen on deaf ears after Swami approached Justice Iyer for help to be represented in the court. Justice Iyer, in his letter of appeal dated March 9, 2012, wrote: “I request the members of Bangalore Bar to give full cooperation in the court and have Swami’s case heard. No one shall return from court on the score that he does not have an advocate to appear for him.”

Justice Iyer then appealed to president of Advocates’ Association of Bangalore, KN Subba Reddy, to let Swami appear party in person and “get justice to the maximum possibility”.

Swami is upset that even after the one-man commission probe into the Madras high court violence of February 2009 — conducted by former Supreme Court judge Justice BN Srikrishna — recommended in its interim report “a better disciplinary mechanism of the profession of law, since it affects not only lawyers but also litigants, the administration of the justice in the country, and finally the rule of law itself”. Nothing had changed after three years.

Justice Srikrishna further recommended: “Until such time that appropriate legislation is made, it is desirable that this honourable court (Madras high court) should formulate appropriate guidelines to be followed by the lawyers and enforced by all courts of law.”

“What does the Supreme Court and Madras high court intend to do with the interim report of Justice Srikrishna, specifically its recommendations with regard to amendment of the Advocates’ Act, and in the meanwhile, formulating guidelines by the Supreme Court for lawyers’ conduct?” said Swami.

Former attorney general Soli Sorabjee had represented Swami in the Supreme Court in his pursuit to discipline Madras high court advocates following the February 2009 violence.

The then Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, hearing Swami’s petition, had disposed of the same: “Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner (Swami) to take other appropriate steps, the writ petition is disposed of.”

The January 17 and March 2 incidents in Bangalore — that witnessed the advocates, and the police and media at loggerheads — and the following indefinite boycott of courts called by the Advocates’ Association of India, gave Swami a chance to appeal (this time before the Karnataka high court) and press for some strong guidelines to restrain the unruly lawyers. 

“If the police or the media resort to such unruly behaviour, at least the people can approach certain organisations to hold them accountable; but in the case of the lawyers we saw the state bar council and the advocates’ associations themselves supporting the agitating advocates.

That is why we need strong guidelines to discipline them,” said Swami, adding that he will take the matter to Supreme Court, if need be, to push for disciplining the lawyers.”