In a significant ruling upholding the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court of India has stayed the operation of a Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order that passed strictures against an advocate without providing him an opportunity to be heard.
The case, A. Pramanayagam v. The Superintendent of Police & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 4186/2025), was brought before the apex court challenging the High Court’s adverse remarks against the petitioner and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, made without prior notice.
Background of the Case
Advocate A. Pramanayagam, the petitioner, was accused of alleged malpractices in filing consumer complaints. While the Bar Council had already initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, the Madras High Court went a step further, ordering an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the allegations. Additionally, the court passed harsh strictures against both the petitioner and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, prompting the lawyer to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Violation of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem) – The primary contention was that the petitioner was condemned unheard, a violation of the foundational legal principle that no person should suffer an adverse order without being given an opportunity to defend themselves.
2. Judicial Overreach in Disciplinary Proceedings – The petitioner argued that since disciplinary action was already pending before the Bar Council, the High Court had no authority to interfere in professional misconduct inquiries.
3. Precedential Safeguards Against Unilateral Strictures – The petitioner cited landmark Supreme Court rulings, including:
– Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora & Anr. (2022), where the Court held that “even the highest court in the country is bound by principles of natural justice. Nobody can be condemned unheard.”
– R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras (2019), which emphasized that courts cannot encroach upon the autonomy of the Bar Council in disciplinary matters.
Supreme Court’s Decision
A three-judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the petition and issued a notice to the respondents while staying the Madras High Court’s order dated 24.07.2024.
The court took strong exception to the strictures passed against the advocate and the Bar Council, stating:
“Strictures against an individual or an institution cannot be passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard.”
Accordingly, the apex court granted interim relief and directed:
– Immediate stay on the High Court’s order until further notice.
– Notice to be served to the respondents, returnable within three weeks.
– Permission to the petitioner to serve the notice through the Standing Counsel of the respondents.
– Petitioner directed to cure defects pointed out by the Registry.
Arguing Counsel for Petitioner: A. Velan (AOR), with Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Mr. Prince Singh, and Mr. Nilay Rai.
