Magistrate Taking Cognizance U/S 384 BNSS Before "Rising Of Court" Is Valid: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Advocates
The Court appreciated the young Judicial Officer for her fearlessness and unwavering commitment to duty in the face of alleged misconduct by Advocates.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench has held that the summary power of a Magistrate to take cognizance of contemptuous conduct under Section 384 BNSS is a vital tool for maintaining judicial order. The Court clarified that as long as the judicial officer initiates the process before the "rising of the court" on the day of the incident, the proceedings satisfy the statutory requirements.
By refusing to quash the show-cause notices issued to members of the Bar, the Court noted that professional status does not grant immunity from the consequences of disrupting the administration of justice. In its detailed judgment, the Court extended high praise to the presiding Judicial Magistrate, describing her as the "living conscience" of the judicial system. The Bench noted that the magistrate acted with exemplary courage and integrity when confronted with a situation where members of the Bar allegedly attempted to overawe the court and dictate judicial orders.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri noting that the Court rose only around 7.30 p.m. and that cognizance was taken in open Court before rising, with CCTV footage supplanting the stated facts, observed, “…A Court is not a time-clock institution governed solely by the outer boundary of office hours. Judicial work frequently extends beyond scheduled hours, especially in remand matters, urgent applications, part heard cases, and cases involving witnesses. The expression employed by the statute is not ‘before the close of office hours’ but ‘before the rising of the Court’. The legislature has consciously used an expression associated with the actual sitting and adjournment of the Court, not with clerical timings”.
Senior Advocates S.R. Rajagopal, D. Selvam appeared for the petitioners and Advocate D. Sivaraman appeared for the respondent.
The matter originated from the events on January 19 and 20, 2026, at the Judicial Magistrate Court No. V, Madurai.
Where following a dispute regarding the listing of a petition for the production of a person in alleged illegal custody, a group of advocates, including Bar office bearers, allegedly entered the courtroom and disrupted proceedings.
The respondent Magistrate alleged that the petitioners used derogatory language, shouted at the Bench, and attempted to prevent the Court from hearing a remand requisition. The ruckus reportedly forced the Magistrate to temporarily withdraw to her chambers, after which she initiated the impugned proceedings.
The Judicial Magistrate initiated action under Section 384 BNSS and Section 267 BNS, issuing show-cause notices to the advocates involved. Further, the Magistrate returned the vakalaths filed by the concerned advocates and insisted on their personal appearance to explain their conduct. The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking to quash the proceedings on the grounds that the Magistrate had not followed the mandatory procedure and that the allegations were motivated by personal bias.
The Court noted that the High Court’s inherent powers should be exercised sparingly, especially when statutory proceedings regarding in facie curiae contempt are at a preliminary stage.
The Bench observed that the CCTV footage and the contemporaneous records maintained by the Magistrate provided a prima facie basis for the notices. It was further held that the Bar and Bench must maintain a symbiotic relationship based on discipline, and any attempt to browbeat a judge strikes at the very root of the rule of law.
“The petitioners’ submission that Section 384 requires not merely cognizance but the entire process to be concluded on the same day is also too broad a proposition to be accepted in the absolute form in which it is stated. The provision requires cognizance before the rising of the Court on the same day and requires a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. The content and extent of such opportunity may vary with circumstances, but at any rate, the present proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the formal notices bear the next day’s date, especially when the respondent’s specific stand is that cognizance itself was taken on the same day. Therefore, the contention founded on timing does not, at this stage, render the proceedings non est”, the Bench noted.
While appreciating the Judicial Magistrate, the Bench said,
"This Court, therefore, records its deep appreciation of Ms. Lakshmi Priya, learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, for her fearlessness, integrity, and unwavering commitment to judicial duty. Officers of her calibre are indeed the invaluable assets of the judiciary worthy inheritors of the noble legacy of justice, reminiscent of the timeless ideals embodied in the land of Manu Neethi Cholan”.
“Her steadfast adherence to duty, marked by independence of mind and clarity of purpose, reflects the finest traditions of the judiciary acting without fear or favour, affection or ill will. In an era where the resilience of institutions is often tested, it is officers of such character who reinforce the very foundations of the justice delivery system…In the case at hand, this Court is witness to a young judicial officer who, unmindful of the age, stature, or experience of the members of the Bar, chose not the path of convenience, but that of conviction. Faced with a charged atmosphere and competing pressures, she did not yield to expediency, nor retreat into silence, but acted with resolute determination to uphold the dignity and authority of the institution she represents. What may be perceived by some as stubbornness, this Court views as principled firmness, an essential attribute in the discharge of judicial duty", the Bench recorded in its observations.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the batch of criminal original petitions, directing the petitioners to submit their explanations before the Judicial Magistrate. The Court ordered that the Magistrate proceed with the inquiry in accordance with the law, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are followed. All interim stays were vacated, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Cause Title: S. Rajmohan v. The Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai Crl. OP (MD) No.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624, and 4711 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioners: S.R. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel, C. M. Arumugam, Advocate.
Respondent: D. Sivaraman, Advocate.