Justice L Victoria Gowri further expressed deep appreciation for the Judicial Magistrate No. V, of Madurai, Lakshmi Priya, for her fearlessness, integrity, and unwavering commitment to judicial duty. “Officers of her calibre are worthy”

[15/05, 13:23] sekarreporter1: “Justice L Victoria Gowri further expressed deep appreciation for the Judicial Magistrate No. V, of Madurai, Lakshmi Priya, for her fearlessness, integrity, and unwavering commitment to judicial duty. “Officers of her calibre are worthy”
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2026/May/15/madras-hc-bins-advocates-plea-over-contempt#:~:text=Justice%20L%20Victoria%20Gowri%20further%20expressed%20deep%20appreciation%20for%20the%20Judicial%20Magistrate%20No.%20V%2C%20of%20Madurai%2C%20Lakshmi%20Priya%2C%20for%20her%20fearlessness%2C%20integrity%2C%20and%20unwavering%20commitment%20to%20judicial%20duty.%20%E2%80%9COfficers%20of%20her%20calibre%20are%20worthy
[15/05, 13:23] Meta AI: *“Madras HC bins advocates’ plea over contempt”*
_New Indian Express | May 15, 2026 | Madurai Bench_
_Justice L. Victoria Gowri_

*1. What happened in court*
On *Jan 19, 2026 after 6 pm*, an advocate moved a petition before *Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai, D. Lakshmi Priya* alleging wrongful detention of his client by SS Colony police.

*Jan 20 morning*: Magistrate listed it as first case. Neither petitioner nor counsel appeared, so it was passed over. At *10:35 am*, police produced same person for remand.

*Disruption*: Several advocates – including Bar president, secretary, treasurer – _“collectively intervened, insisting that the court should not proceed with the remand”_ because it would make their habeas petition _“infructuous”_. Proceedings disrupted; magistrate _“was constrained to rise from the dais and retire to chambers”_.

*2. Magistrate’s action*
JM Lakshmi Priya initiated contempt proceedings against 4 advocates. Issued *show cause notices under Sec 384 BNSS* + directed personal appearance.

*3. Advocates’ writ to HC*
Filed petitions seeking to quash contempt notices + personal appearance order. Argued it was professional conduct.

*4. Madras HC Ruling – May 15, 2026*
*Justice L. Victoria Gowri dismissed the petitions*, holding:

1. *Not protected conduct*: _“Any collective attempt by advocates or office-bearers of a Bar Association to overbear a presiding officer, to insist upon a particular judicial order, or to interrupt the course of a hearing in a manner unbecoming of officers of the court, cannot be treated as protected professional conduct.”_

2. *Praise for JM Lakshmi Priya*: Justice Gowri _“expressed deep appreciation for the Judicial Magistrate No. V, of Madurai, Lakshmi Priya, for her fearlessness, integrity, and unwavering commitment to judicial duty. ‘Officers of her calibre are worthy inheritors of the noble legacy of justice, reminiscent of ideals embodied in the land of Manu Neethi Cholan,’ the judge said.”_

3. *Institutional protection*: Law gives courts _“immediate powers to protect the institution”_ when something disrupts or undermines proceedings.

*5. Why the quote matters*
Justice Gowri singled out JM Lakshmi Priya as an example of judicial courage. _“Manu Neethi Cholan”_ reference invokes the Chola king famous for impartial justice – even ordering execution of his son for killing a calf. HC used it to say magistrates who don’t buckle under Bar pressure uphold that legacy.

*Bottom line*: Madras HC refused to stop contempt against advocates who stormed a Madurai court to block remand. Said pressuring judges for specific orders isn’t “professional conduct”. Instead, HC lauded JM Lakshmi Priya for not yielding and retiring to chambers rather than giving in.

*Citation*: New Indian Express, May 15, 2026. Case related to Jan 19-20, 2026 incident at JM V Court, Madurai.

Want the full order or background on Sec 384 BNSS contempt procedure?