In a pivotal ruling, the Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking restrictions on the number of lawyers who may accompany VIPs and VVIPs during court appearances. The court emphasized that there is no legal framework mandating such limits and thus no grounds for judicial intervention on the matter.
Case Background
The petition, W.P. No. 22971 of 2023, was filed by advocate N. Mahendra Babu, who argued that an excessive number of lawyers frequently accompany high-profile litigants to court, especially in sensitive or high-stakes cases. According to the petitioner, these large entourages create crowding in courtrooms, disrupt court operations, and inconvenience other advocates and litigants who rely on an orderly environment to carry out their proceedings.
The petitioner had previously addressed the issue to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court through a formal representation on July 17, 2023. In his appeal, Babu requested that specific rules be established to limit the number of advocates who could represent or accompany VIPs and VVIPs in the courtroom. After receiving no response, Babu filed a writ petition naming the Registrar General, the State Government represented by the Secretary of the Home Department, and the Director General of Police as respondents.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed several critical legal points in its ruling, focusing on the feasibility and necessity of judicial intervention given the current legal structure.
1. Absence of Statutory Basis
One of the core issues was the absence of any legislation or regulatory mandate that would support a restriction on the number of advocates who could accompany litigants. The court noted that for any directive or restriction to be imposed, there must be clear statutory backing. Without this foundation, the court held that it could not compel the Registrar General or any other authority to implement the requested restrictions.
2. Public Duty of the Registrar General
The petitioner argued that the Registrar General, in maintaining order and decorum in courtrooms, bears a public duty to regulate the number of advocates in such cases. However, the court found that this “public duty” does not legally extend to restricting the number of lawyers accompanying individuals, including VIPs, unless expressly stated by law.
3. Balancing Representation and Judicial Order
This case underscored a nuanced concern about balancing the rights of litigants—especially high-profile individuals—to access sufficient legal representation with the practical need to maintain courtroom decorum and accessibility. The court observed that while crowding can be a legitimate concern, it is not within its jurisdiction to impose arbitrary limits on legal representation in the absence of statutory guidelines.
Observations and Decision of the Court
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Mr. K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, dismissed the petition, stating that there was no legal basis to justify the restriction requested by the petitioner. In their order, they highlighted the absence of legislative measures that define the number of lawyers who may appear for or accompany a litigant, even if that litigant is a VIP or VVIP.
The court clarified, “In the absence of a public duty on the part of the Registrar General to impose restrictions on the number of advocates appearing for or accompanying VIPs/VVIPs, the petitioner is not entitled to a mandamus as prayed for.” In effect, this judgment underscored the judiciary’s role in adhering strictly to legislative frameworks without overstepping by enforcing unlegislated regulations.
Representation in Court
Advocate Mr. R. Ganesan represented the petitioner, while Mr. B. Vijay appeared on behalf of the Registrar General. Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar, the State Government Pleader, assisted by Mr. Habeeb Rahman, the Government Advocate, represented the State Government and the Director General of Police. Additionally, Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar represented the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
With this decision, the Madras High Court has clarified that unless and until the legislature provides specific rules or guidelines on the presence of advocates accompanying litigants, the judiciary cannot impose limitations on the number of lawyers present in court, even in cases involving high-profile individuals.
