Rubt Three: Justice Chandru’s land mark judgment on fundamental rights under Constitution of India and the rights of the Bar under Sec 30 of Advocates Act.
When Contempt proceeding was initiated by the Tamil Nadu Assembly against Nakeeran Gopal his Counsel Adv Edwig filed Vakalath in defense of him but the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly rejected his Vakalath holding that for the purpose of giving an explanation to the show cause notice issued by the Privilege Committee the concerned person must himself give an explanation in writing and also appear before the Committee for giving statement. Hence on behalf Nakeeran Gopal no lawyer or any other person will be allowed to give explanation or argue his case before the Privilege Committee. Adv. Edwig and Nakeeran Gopal challenged the said order separately before Madras High Court and I was engaged to appear in the W.P. filed by Adv. Edwig the Counsel for Nakeeran Gopal and both the W.P. came before Justice Chandru for disposal. The main question of law that was raised in the WPs was that whether Nakeeran Gopal who was summoned to appear and show cause before the Privilege Committee constituted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly is entitled to be represented along with an Advocate of his choice in the said proceedings or not?
It was contended that the proceedings initiated for breach of privilege contemplates prosecution arrest punishment and incarceration and therefore in proceedings of such nature to protect fundamental right of Nakeeran Gopal the representation of an Advocate is a must and that fundamental right cannot be denied by the Privilege Committee and the right of an Advocate to defend his client cannot be denied and equally the right of practice anywhere.
It was submitted before the Judge that Sec 30 the Advocates Act has come into force w.e.f 15.06.2011 and Adv. Edwig has the right to appear in defense of Nakeeran Gopal before the Privilege Committee as it is an authorized authority in law to record evidence and decide the mode of punishment.
In finality Justice Chandru held that the Privilege Committee vested with the power of recording evidence cannot deny Nakeeran Gopal the assistance of an Advocate of his choice in the absence of any specific rule prohibiting such appearance and directed the TN Assembly Privilege Committee to permit Nakeeran Gopal to be represented by an Advocate of his choice along with him before the Privilege Committee and thus Adv Edwig was permitted to appear in defense of Nakeeran Gopal.
[5/6, 11:49] Sekarreporter: 🙏🏽🌹🌹
