Advocate Cannot Claim Immunity From Rule of Law: Madras High Court Sends Lawyer to Jail for Wilful Disobedience

“Blatant Breach of Undertaking By a Lawyer Is a Serious Contempt, Courts Cannot Be Bullied” — Madras High Court, through Justice N. Sathish Kumar, delivered a stern and precedent-setting ruling in Contempt Petitions, sentencing practicing advocate A. Mohandass to four months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000 for deliberate and willful contempt of court. The Court held that “when a lawyer himself becomes an example of lawlessness, it is the duty of the Court to protect the majesty of law by enforcing its orders.”

This significant ruling underscores the judiciary's intolerance for repeated misuse of judicial process, especially by members of the Bar who are expected to uphold justice rather than subvert it.

The landlord, P. Vikash Kumar, had initiated rent control proceedings against Mohandass in 2015. Despite the admission by the contemnor of his tenancy, he systematically abused the legal process for nearly a decade by filing frivolous applications, petitions, reviews, and even Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, merely to stall eviction.

The High Court had earlier in its order dated 8th November 2024, directed eviction within two months. The Supreme Court upheld this order on 6th January 2025, granting time till 31st May 2025 for voluntary eviction upon filing an undertaking.

However, the contemnor not only failed to comply but also filed a new suit to obstruct the eviction, thereby inviting the wrath of the Court.

Court’s Observation on Legal Issues and Advocate’s Conduct

Justice N. Sathish Kumar meticulously traced the contemnor’s history of abuse of process, noting:
“The contemnor, despite being an officer of the court, showed utter disregard for the orders of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. His conduct is unbecoming of a member of the Bar.”

The Court emphasized that an advocate’s privileged status under the Constitution is “not a shield to defy court orders or to bully judicial institutions.”

Highlighting settled legal principles, the Court observed, “A willful breach of an undertaking amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and when a lawyer defies court orders, it strikes at the foundation of justice delivery.”

The Court referred to key Supreme Court decisions, including M.Y. Shareef v. Judges of Nagpur High Court, L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., and Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India, to affirm that apologies tendered without genuine remorse cannot dilute culpability in contempt proceedings.

The Court concluded that:
“The contemnor’s apology is a mere afterthought devoid of sincerity, and his explanations are filled with fresh allegations and malicious claims against court officers.”

In an impactful statement, the Court declared:
“Such obstinate conduct of an advocate who uses his legal knowledge as a weapon to harass landlords and misuse judicial process must be dealt with iron hands, lest it encourages others to undermine the authority of the judiciary.”

Justice Sathish Kumar passed detailed and multi-pronged directions:

• The contemnor is sentenced to four months simple imprisonment and ₹2,000 fine.

• The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was directed to initiate disciplinary action for professional misconduct.

• The civil court was directed to strike off the contemnor’s frivolous injunction suit.

• The Bailiff was authorized to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord by force if necessary.

• The contemnor’s belongings, if unclaimed within a month, were directed to be disposed of lawfully.

• The High Court retained the inventory and video records as case material.

The Court condemned the contemnor’s deliberate flouting of his undertaking, stating:
“A lawyer cannot play fast and loose with court orders after solemnly undertaking compliance. To allow such contempt to go unpunished would embolden the defiance of law.”

The judgment sends a robust message to the legal fraternity that misuse of legal process and wilful disobedience, particularly by officers of the court, will not be condoned. In the words of Justice Sathish Kumar:
“Courts cannot be mute spectators when their authority is mocked by those who are expected to defend its sanctity.”

The Madras High Court has thus fortified the principle that no person, regardless of professional status, is above the law, reaffirming the judiciary’s role as the custodian of rule of law and discipline within the legal profession.

Date of Decision: 8th July 2025