sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxUli2HNfvaDkkyqPIVbkYqD9zIgcWCE_N?si=3zlCRkMwOcJko-xZ [01/05, 15:09] sekarreporter1: From RC PAUL KANAGARAJ PRESIDENT MHAA To The Hon’ble Chief Justice High Court of Judicature at Madras Respected Lordship, Sub: Representation seeking intervention against restrictions on advocates accompanying clients to police stations — Reg.

[01/05, 15:09] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxUli2HNfvaDkkyqPIVbkYqD9zIgcWCE_N?si=3zlCRkMwOcJko-xZ
[01/05, 15:09] sekarreporter1: From
RC PAUL KANAGARAJ
PRESIDENT MHAA
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Respected Lordship,
Sub: Representation seeking intervention against restrictions on advocates accompanying clients to police stations — Reg.
I write this representation in my capacity as President, Buff-IAA, to bring to the kind attention of Hon’ble Chief Justice, an issue of serious concern affecting the legal fraternity and the administration ofjustice.
It has come to notice that, pursuant to recent oral directions from the office of Commissioner of Police, advocates are being prevented from accompanying their clients and making representations before the Office of the Commissioner of Police and various police stations. Such restrictions are being enforced informally, resulting in denial of access to advocates in the course of their professional duties.
It is respectfully submitted that such actions are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the statutory mandate under Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confer an exclusive and unfettered right upon advocates to practice the profession of law throughout the territory of India. Any executive or administrative instruction, much less an oral direction, which curtails this right, is ultra vires the Act and unsustainable in law.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424 has categorically recognized the right of a person to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner during police interrogation, holding that the presence of a lawyer, though not throughout the interrogation, cannot be denied if requested. Similarly, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) I SCC 416, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of procedural safeguards during arrest and detention, which inherently include access to legal counsel as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Denial of such access undermines the rights of both advocates and citizens, and adversely impacts the principles of fair procedure and legal representation.
In these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that Hon’ble Chief Justice may be pleased to take cognizance of the issue and issue appropriate directions or orders to ensure that advocates are permitted to accompany their clients to police stations and the offices of law enforcement authorities, without obstruction, thereby safeguarding their right to practice and upholding the rule of law.
Kanagaraj