Police attack on lawyers planned, unwarranted, say senior lawyers

Senior members of the bar feel there is no direct link between the unprecedented violence in the Madras high court campus on Thursday and the prolonged court boycott and incidents that took place in the premises in recent weeks.

Advocates contacted by TOI said while there could be two opinions on the tendency to embroil the legal fraternity in any political or social cause and the politicisation of court campuses, there was no doubt that Thursday's attack on lawyers, vehicles and the high court's property by a huge posse of policemen was wholly unwarranted.

"It was a planned and premeditated incident, as the police would normally not attack the legal fraternity without specific instructions," said S Vijayaraghavan, senior advocate. He said the court should be out of bounds for any use of force by the police except with the express consent of the Chief Justice.

That a high court judge was one of the assault victims has shocked many lawyers. "If a judge can be attacked within the court premises, it is a serious incident of far-reaching consequences in a democracy," said another lawyer.

Senior advocate K M Vijayan, however, said it was wrong to look at the trend in terms of isolated incidents. There is an inner agenda behind these things," he said.

Some conceded that frequent boycotts and occasional incidents like the hurling of eggs at Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, had affected the image of lawyers and coloured people's perception of incidents.

When asked about judicial functioning being frequently paralysed due to boycotts, a few lawyers said a way out was the de-politicisation of the court campus and ensuring that various causes, however justified they might be, were not used to divide the bar. However, as a senior advocate put it, it was not appropriate to raise larger questions in the context of the day's violence.

Advocates who did not want to be quoted felt that the courts should be firm in dealing with boycotts by going ahead with hearings and dismissing cases if counsel was not present after affording one or two opportunities.