High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 1014 [Petitioner] Vs. Krishnaveni [Respondents]
Cont.P.No.1248 of 2025 and Sub Appln(OS)No.703 of 2025
(THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA)
In a significant move underscoring the importance of professional ethics within the legal fraternity, the Madras High Court has taken serious note of an advocate’s conduct that obstructed the execution of non-bailable warrants issued against his clients. In High Court of Madras vs Krishnaveni & Others, Justice P.T. Asha, presiding over the suo motu contempt proceedings, strongly reprimanded Advocate R. Balasubramanian for conduct that the court deemed unbecoming of a legal practitioner and injurious to the integrity of the judicial system.
The court had earlier directed the police to execute non-bailable warrants against the contemnors—clients of the accused advocate. However, during a subsequent hearing, the police submitted an affidavit stating that although they attempted to comply with the court’s orders, they were hindered in their efforts due to the obstructive actions of the advocate.
Justice Asha observed that such conduct by a lawyer is not only a blatant attempt to interfere with the administration of justice but also a serious professional transgression. Taking stern cognizance, the court directed Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar, the Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Advocate Balasubramanian.
The court’s ire was further provoked by the revelation that one of the contemnors admitted to signing an affidavit—submitted in support of a transfer petition (Tr.C.M.P.)—in English without understanding its contents. Shockingly, this affidavit was also signed on behalf of the other petitioners, who were not even made aware of the nature of the petition. They mistakenly believed they had filed a plea seeking the return of their land, not realizing it was, in fact, a document critical of judicial officers.
This admission led the court to conclude that the contents of the affidavit were fabricated by the counsel himself. The language used in the affidavit was found to be not only misleading but also derogatory, containing unsubstantiated and inflammatory remarks against judges and judicial officers.
Further aggravating the situation, the advocate reportedly continued to behave in a disruptive manner during court proceedings, even going so far as to abuse and curse the judiciary during the hearing. Justice Asha termed the behavior disgraceful and contrary to the standards expected from an officer of the court.
Accordingly, the court ordered the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to initiate appropriate proceedings against Advocate Balasubramanian for his misconduct and abuse of process. The suo motu contempt petition was closed with this direction, but the matter is far from over as disciplinary mechanisms have now been set in motion.
The ruling serves as a sharp reminder of the duty lawyers owe not just to their clients, but to the rule of law, the judiciary, and the integrity of the legal profession.
