The Madras High Court has raised a strong alarm over the misuse of the legal profession in civil property disputes, observing that some financially distressed and misguided junior lawyers are acting as henchmen for litigants. Justice Sunder Mohan made the remarks while granting conditional anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.Nos. 8329 & 7856 of 2025, a case involving forcible entry into disputed property allegedly orchestrated by businesspersons with the help of lawyers.
Background
The case stems from a property dispute over a 65,836 sq.ft. land parcel at Karapakkam village, OMR Road, Chennai. Petitioners Sushil Lalwani, Aarthi Lalwani, and J. Vijayakumar, a practicing advocate, were booked in Crime No. 105 of 2025 for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The prosecution alleged that under the guise of executing a civil court’s injunction order, the petitioners sent a group of lawyers who forcibly entered the premises, assaulted employees, and damaged CCTV cameras.
Court’s Critical Observations
Justice Sunder Mohan, noting the gravity of the allegations and the visual evidence of lawyers aggressively entering the premises, commented:
“The lawyers have acted as henchmen for the litigants. They are expected to use the brain and not the brawn. The instant case confirms that some of the lawyers, unfortunately, have forgotten / or not been told that they belong to a noble profession.”
The Court was particularly concerned about the organized nature of such conduct, referring to WhatsApp groups reportedly used to mobilize lawyers for similar activities. Emphasizing the ethical code of conduct laid out by the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Court reminded that:
“An advocate should refuse to act in an illegal or improper manner towards the opposing counsel or the opposing parties.”
Reinforcing its call for systemic reform and mentorship for young lawyers, the Court stated:
“The above directions are made keeping in mind the fact that the junior lawyers who have no guidance and are in financial need are indulging in such activities not realising the fact that such activities, would not only affect their careers but, as stated earlier, bring disrepute to the noble profession.”
Conditional Bail and Institutional Response
While granting bail, the Court held that custodial interrogation was not required but imposed stringent conditions:
- Petitioners Sushil and Aarthi Lalwani must deposit ₹10,00,000 to the credit of Crime No. 105 of 2025 and pay ₹3,00,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
- Petitioner J. Vijayakumar must furnish a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties.
- All petitioners were directed to appear daily before the investigating officer for two weeks and not tamper with evidence or abscond.
Further, the Court took institutional measures to address professional misconduct:
- The police were directed to provide the names and specific roles of all involved lawyers to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
- The Bar Council was instructed to initiate a formal inquiry and report back to the Court.
- Junior lawyers without prior misconduct, but found involved, were to appear monthly before the Bar Council for a year and submit work reports.
- Senior lawyers were urged to provide training and mentorship to these juniors to rehabilitate them into ethical legal practice.
Directive to Police Authorities
The Court also directed the Director General of Police, Chennai, to instruct all Station House Officers to take stringent action against lawyers who misuse their professional identity to participate in or instigate unlawful activities.
While clarifying that the observations were limited to the bail proceedings, the Court underlined that the broader issue of lawyers acting beyond their professional boundaries required immediate attention to protect the dignity of the legal profession.
Citation: Crl.O.P.Nos.8329 & 7856 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Order dated 15 April 2025
