The Madras Excessive Court docket on Thursday (October 3, 2024) disapproved of the observe of branding ‘north Madras youth’ as being violent or totally different from the residents of different elements of Chennai. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam requested a lawyer to not use the time period ‘north Madras youth’ on this context.
When the judges commenced the sitting for the day, advocate S. Tamilarasan made a point out of the withdrawal of police safety supplied to senior counsel S.R. Singaravelan and his household when he had administered the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) earlier than 2019.
The advocate mentioned the ‘north Madras youth’ had a craze for sporting black coats and robes and affixing legal professionals’ stickers on their autos, and that they tried to acquire regulation levels from doubtful establishments in neighbouring States to aim to enrol with the BCTNP.
Mr. Singaravelan, throughout his stint as a particular committee member of the BCTNP, had rejected the purposes of greater than 1,000 ‘north Madras youth’ and had confronted an alleged risk to his life, the advocate mentioned, including that he and his household got police safety because of this.
Stating that this safety was withdrawn lately, he mentioned Bahujan Samaj Get together’s Tamil Nadu unit president Ok. Armstrong was murdered by an armed gang in July this 12 months and {that a} particular investigation staff constituted for the probe had investigated almost 200 ‘north Madras legal professionals’ in reference to the case.
Perplexed by the connection drawn between the political chief’s homicide and the police safety hunted for the senior counsel, Justice Subramaniam instructed the advocate: “We don’t see any connection between the homicide and the senior counsel. Why are you unnecessarily dragging him into the homicide case?”
The senior choose within the Bench additionally acknowledged that Mr. Singaravelan had carried out the obligation anticipated of him as a member of the particular committee which administered the BCTNP earlier than the conduct of elections to the council, and that might not entail granting lifelong police safety at public value.
“Advocates do not need a retirement age. Legal professionals aged 85 and 86 years are additionally showing earlier than us. One can not anticipate police safety to be given life lengthy at public expense. If you need, you possibly can all the time have non-public safety guards,“ the choose instructed the lawyer.
He went on to state: “There’s a committee within the police division for the periodical evaluation of risk notion and to take a name on both persevering with or withdrawing the safety supplied to people. If the committee’s determination is challenged on the judicial facet, then we will look at the matter, not in any other case.”
Taking a critical objection to the advocate repeatedly utilizing the phrases ‘north Madras youth’ and ‘north Madras legal professionals’, the choose requested him not to take action. “Be it north, south, east or west, all are residents of the identical Madras or Chennai metropolis that we stay in. Don’t seek advice from anybody like that,” he mentioned.
Printed – October 03, 2024 02:56 pm IST