“Advocates cannot dictate terms to court”

Advocates cannot “dictate terms to the court” and expect judges to pass orders according to the “whims and fancies” of lawyers, the Madras High Court Bench in Madurai has said.

Passing interim orders in a quash petition, Justice S. Tamilvanan said that the duty of a lawyer was to convince the court to accept his arguments by putting forth the legal as well as factual aspects related to their case.


Without doing so, a counsel could not behave in a “rough and tough manner” and make “unpleasant” submissions that he would not get justice before a particular judge and hence his case should be transferred to some other judge.

“The legal profession is a noble profession and an advocate is not only the counsel to his client but also an officer of the court. Therefore, maintaining professional ethics and decorum of the court is paramount,” the judge said.

He went on to state: “The Bench and the Bar are two sides of the same coin. Hence, no counsel can indulge to win any case by hook or by crook without maintaining proper decorum of the court and without placing his legal arguments.

“If it is the attitude in the High Court, we cannot imagine the fate of the subordinate courts.” However, he made clear that not all but only a few advocates were functioning in a way affecting the functioning of the judicial institution.

The present petition was filed to quash a dowry demand case pending against a family of seven before a District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Thirumayam in Pudukottai district.

When it came up for hearing, the counsel wanted Mr. Justice Tamilvanan to extend an interim order, already granted by another judge, dispensing with the personal appearance of the accused before the lower court.

“The court asked for the factual aspects to decide the maintainability of the petition. Without stating anything on the facts, abruptly the counsel represented that the court may transfer the case to some other judge,” the judge said.

The way in which the counsel represented the matter could not be “appreciated.” But for that, the litigants could not be made to suffer, the judge said and dispensed with the appearance of two aged petitioners alone.