"Lawyers Have Acted As Henchmen For The Litigants": Madras HC While Granting Conditional Bail To Advocates Accused Of Orchestrating Forced Possession
The Court said that lawyers are expected to use “brain and not the brawn,” and further observed that the legal profession must not be used as a cloak for illegal activities.
The Madras High Court granted conditional anticipatory bail to a group of lawyers accused of forceful entry and vandalism during a civil property dispute, observing that the lawyers had acted as "henchmen for the litigants" and brought disrepute to the legal profession.
A Single Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan observed, “The lawyers have acted as henchmen for the litigants… Litigants indulging in such activities is not new and the Court has to deal with such activities and resolve the disputes. However, lawyers identifying themselves with the litigants and indulging in such activities cannot be pardoned. They are expected to behave in a dignified manner. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has framed rules in this regard.”
The Court added, “…junior lawyers who have no guidance and are in financial need are indulging in such activities not realising the fact that such activities, would not only affect their careers but, as stated earlier, bring disrepute to the noble profession”
Senior Advocate S.R. Rajagopal represented the Petitioners, while Government Advocate K. Jaganathan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The FIR arose from an incident related to an ongoing civil property dispute involving a sizable parcel of land. According to the Respondent, the Petitioners, claiming rights over the disputed property based on a Civil Court's injunction order, orchestrated an entry into the premises by engaging a group of lawyers and other individuals. It was alleged that these individuals forcefully entered the property, assaulted employees present on site, and caused damage to surveillance infrastructure, including CCTV cameras and storage devices.
One of the Petitioners, an advocate, was specifically authorized in writing to present and act upon the injunction order to protect the business interests of the entities represented by the other Petitioners. This letter was relied upon by the Respondent to argue that the lawyers were not mere representatives but active participants in an unlawful operation to gain possession.
The Petitioners contended that the entire sale consideration for the property had already been paid and that they had been in possession of the property since a prior period. They further submitted that the injunction obtained from the Civil Court specifically restrained interference with their possession, and it was pursuant to this order that the lawyers entered the premises. The entry, according to them, was peaceful, and the allegations of violence and property
The Complainant submitted that the petitioners had not fulfilled their obligations under the sale agreement with regard to a substantial portion of the consideration which remained unpaid. It was further submitted by the Complainant that the act was premeditated, as they disabled CCTV systems and removed the memory cards to destroy evidence.
The Respondent averred that the legal profession has been used as a cloak to indulge in such criminal activities and unless it was curbed and strictly dealt with, such activities would continue and would disturb the law and order and, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Reasoning of the Court
Refraining adjudicating upon the disputes with regard to the ownership or possession of the property, the Court noted that the Petitioners had admitted that they were lawyers who went to the disputed property to explain the order passed by the Civil Court, though they denied that they had trespassed and caused damage to the property and injury to the employees of the Complainant.
The Court remarked, “The sequence of events narrated by the parties reveals a painful situation. The lawyers have acted as henchmen for the litigants. They are expected to use the brain and not the brawn. The instant case confirms that some of the lawyers, unfortunately, have forgotten / or not been told that they belong to a noble profession.”
The Court took note of the submissions made by the Respondent that this was done in an organized manner, where lawyers had WhatsApp groups and junior lawyers had been engaged to specifically indulge in such activities and get away under the cloak of this profession.
The Bench reminded that the Bar Council of India (BCI) had framed rules whereunder advocates were expected to refrain from acting in a illegal manner, and that they were supposed to conduct themselves in a dignified manner.
The Court said, “…it is not a part of lawyers' duty to enter into the premises even under the guise of explaining the order. In this case, according to the Respondent, unfortunately, the lawyers have acted like henchmen. Further, the conduct of the petitioners in engaging lawyers to do such activities, if found to be true in the trial, is highly condemnable.”
The Bench further noted that most of the lawyers who were involved in the occurrence had been arrested and released on bail. “The lawyers have not only violated the rules of the BCI and have not adhered to the professional etiquette but have also brought disrepute to the profession as such”, the Court stated.
The Court directed the petitioners to deposit ₹3,00,000 with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and asked the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to conduct an enquiry into the incident. Junior lawyers involved, but without prior misconduct, may be required to report monthly to the disciplinary committee for a year.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, subject to the additional deposit of Rs 10,00,000/- to the Trial Court.
Cause Title: J. Vijaykumar v. State (Crl. O.P. Nos.8329 & 7856 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates S.R. Rajagopal, A. Ramesh, S. Prabakaran
Complainant: Advocate K. Jagannathan
Respondent: Government Advocate S. Santhosh
