Supreme Court stays high court’s suspension order on Madras high court lawyer Chandramohan

The Supreme Court today stayed the Madras high court order directing suspension of advocate RK Chandramohan from chairmanship of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for allegedly attempting to influence a judge by taking former telecom minister A Raja's name.

A bench comprising Justice DK Jain and Justice HL Dattu also stayed the operation of the high court direction asking the Bar Council of India to initiate disciplinary action against Chandramohan.

The bench, which stayed the operation of these two directions, posted the matter for further hearing in the first week of January.

The Madras high court had on December 7 suspended from the bar the top lawyer who was allegedly involved in an attempt to influence Justice S Regupathy taking the name of Raja.

A division bench comprising Justice FM Ibrahim Khalifulla and Justice M M Sundaresh had said the status of Chandramohan shall stand suspended forthwith.

He should not be permitted to function as such pending disciplinary action by the Bar Council of India, the bench had said.


Supreme Court stays high court's suspension order on Madras high court lawyer Chandramohan

Disposing of a petition by a lawyer, the bench had appended a portion of a letter written by Justice Reghupati, who had reported that Chandramohan had entered his chamber last year and pleaded that the case of a father and a son, accused in a marks scandal case in Puducherry, for anticipatory bail be considered favourably as they were "family friends" of Raja.

The lawyer handed over his mobile phone to the judge, saying that the "union minister is on the line to have a talk with me".

"I discouraged such conduct of Chandramohan and told him that the case would be disposed of in accordance with law, if listed before me," Justice Reghupati had said in his letter of July 7, 2009  to the then chief justice of India.

Justice Reghupati, who has since retired, had in his letter, complained about Chandramohan's "outburst and uncontrollable" behaviour.

The apex court bench said it was only staying two of the high court's directions.

Appearing for advocate Chandramohan, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi apprised the bench of the appeal filed by the Madras lawyer and contended that all the directions of the high court were illegal except that a complaint can be filed against the advocate.

He said the high court does not have the power to direct the suspension of the membership of an advocate, which is granted under a statute.

Rohatgi said this legal position was made clear in the apex court judgement in which it has been stated that even the Supreme Court cannot direct suspension of an advocate.

During the brief hearing, the bench also sought to know how the petition of quo warranto was entertained in the matter.

During the brief hearing, advocate Elephant Rajendran, who had filed a caveat, agreed that a writ of quo warranto would not lie in the matter and writ of mandamus would be applicable.

The bench, however, observed that "at the best, it could be a case of contempt."