Lawyers Must Use Brain, Not Brawn: Madras High Court Slams Advocates Acting as Henchmen in Property Dispute

"They Belong To A Noble Profession, Not Gangs Of Musclemen" - In a scathing judgment delivered on 15 April 2025, the Madras High Court in J. Vijayakumar vs. State (Crl.O.P.Nos.8329 & 7856 of 2025) condemned the disturbing trend of advocates acting as henchmen rather than upholding the dignity of the legal profession. Justice Sunder Mohan, while deciding anticipatory bail petitions related to a violent property dispute in Karapakkam Village, Chennai, observed, "Lawyers are expected to use the brain and not the brawn." Stressing the sanctity of the legal profession, the Court imposed strict conditions on granting bail, sending a strong reminder to the Bar about ethical conduct.

The dispute stemmed from a massive property transaction worth ₹103 crores. Allegations emerged that after securing an interim injunction, the petitioners engaged lawyers who, instead of legally enforcing rights, resorted to force by damaging CCTV cameras, assaulting employees, and destroying evidence to take illegal possession.

In a damning narration of events, the Court noted that "lawyers had actively participated in acts that amounted to criminal trespass and violence, abusing their status as officers of the court." Despite civil suits pending regarding the transaction, unlawful tactics had been adopted to usurp property rights.

The key legal issues were whether custodial interrogation was necessary for the accused lawyers and whether anticipatory bail should be granted.
Justice Sunder Mohan minced no words, stating, "The legal profession is one of nobility, not notoriety. Some lawyers seem to have forgotten they are part of a noble institution." He further lamented, "If such behaviour is not curbed, it would disturb the law and order situation drastically."

Referring to the Bar Council of India Rules, the Court emphasized that lawyers have a paramount duty to uphold the integrity of the profession and must "refuse to act in an illegal or improper manner towards the opposing counsel or parties." It added that "the lawyers had allowed themselves to become private musclemen of parties under the thin guise of injunction enforcement."

Though the Court acknowledged that custodial interrogation was not necessary due to the nature of evidence, it refused to grant unconditional bail. Justice Mohan observed, "Grant of bail should not send a wrong message to the Bar or society."

Accordingly, anticipatory bail was granted with stringent conditions, including the deposit of ₹10 lakhs with the investigating agency and ₹3 lakhs with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Court directed, "The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against such lawyers who acted in flagrant violation of their ethical duties."
Importantly, the Court noted, "Junior lawyers may have been led astray. They should be mentored but not spared accountability." For younger advocates, a special direction was made that they shall report monthly to senior members of the Bar and submit reports of their professional conduct.

The Madras High Court’s stern message in J. Vijayakumar vs. State upholds the honor and dignity expected from members of the legal profession. Justice Sunder Mohan concluded with a powerful reminder:
"A lawyer should never become a party's private enforcer. If this becomes the trend, the legal profession shall fall into irreversible disrepute."

By emphasizing the need for ethical adherence and imposing significant financial and disciplinary conditions, the Court sought to strike a balance between ensuring justice and preserving the sanctity of the legal fraternity.

Date of Decision: 15 April 2025