The Madras High Court has held that while advocates are entitled to peacefully protest the arrest of fellow members of the Bar, they cannot interfere with the statutory duty of the police to produce an arrested person before the jurisdictional court for remand.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while partially allowing a petition filed by ten advocates seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them over a protest following the arrest of two lawyers in an NDPS case.
The petitioners contended that the criminal case stemmed from a demonstration against what they described as the arbitrary arrest of two advocates in connection with an incident that had allegedly occurred two years earlier. They argued that the prosecution was an unwarranted response to a legitimate protest.
The High Court drew a distinction between the right to stage a peaceful protest and acts that obstruct the administration of criminal justice. It observed that while a peaceful demonstration against an arrest would not, by itself, justify criminal prosecution, preventing police officers from producing an accused before a competent court would amount to unlawful interference with the legal process.
Emphasising the remedies available under law, the Court said that if advocates believe an arrest has been effected illegally or accompanied by police excesses, the appropriate course is to appear before the remand court, oppose the request for judicial custody and pursue remedies available under the legal framework rather than physically obstructing police officials.
The case arose out of a protest held within the Madras High Court premises in November 2023 after two advocates, Dinesh and Neeraj, were arrested by the Sathankadu Police in an NDPS case. According to the prosecution, the protesting lawyers prevented the police from producing the arrested advocates before the Special Court for remand despite repeated warnings.
While considering the plea for quashing the FIR, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings was not warranted, subject to the petitioners expressing remorse for obstructing the police. It accordingly directed the advocates to file affidavits tendering an unconditional apology for their conduct. Upon compliance with that condition, the FIR would stand quashed.
The ruling underscores that although members of the legal profession enjoy the constitutional right to assemble and protest peacefully, such demonstrations cannot impede the discharge of statutory functions by law enforcement agencies or obstruct judicial proceedings. The Court reiterated that grievances relating to illegal arrest or police misconduct must be addressed through established legal remedies before the competent court.
Case: Ajith Kumar v. State
The post Madras High Court: Lawyers may protest arrests but cannot obstruct police from producing accused before court appeared first on India Legal.