The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with proceedings initiated against several advocates and Bar office bearers accused of interrupting judicial proceedings inside a Magistrate court in Madurai.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri dismissed a batch of criminal original petitions filed by practising advocates who sought quashing of show cause notices issued under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case Background
The petitions arose out of an incident that allegedly took place on January 20, 2026, before Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai. According to the Magistrate, a group of advocates, including Bar Association office bearers, entered the courtroom during remand proceedings connected to a petition filed under Section 100 BNSS.
The Magistrate alleged that the advocates collectively interrupted proceedings, insisted that remand should not be passed, and attempted to influence the judicial process. The court record also referred to remarks allegedly made in open court and stated that the atmosphere became so tense that the Magistrate briefly retired to chambers before resuming work.
The advocates denied wrongdoing and argued that the episode was merely a misunderstanding between the Bar and the Bench. They maintained that they had entered the courtroom only to make a professional representation regarding an earlier High Court order restraining arrest of the accused concerned.
The petitioners argued that the proceedings under Section 384 BNSS were legally defective. Their lawyers contended that:
- no specific overt acts were attributed to each petitioner;
- the alleged conduct did not amount to “intentional insult or interruption” under Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita;
- cognizance was not properly taken before the court rose for the day; and
- the Magistrate’s use of the term “offenders” showed bias and predetermination.
Senior counsel appearing for the advocates also urged the High Court to encourage reconciliation between the Bar and the Bench rather than prolonging institutional conflict.
Rejecting the plea for quashing, the High Court said the allegations could not be brushed aside at the preliminary stage.
The Court observed that the issue involved “institutional significance” and was not merely a personal dispute between lawyers and a judicial officer.
“The Bar and the Bench are not adversaries. They are partners in the administration of justice,” the Court observed while stressing that advocates remain officers of the court at all times.
Justice Victoria Gowri further remarked that while lawyers are entitled to be fearless, they cannot become “overbearing” or obstruct judicial proceedings.
The Court also held that the phrase “before the rising of the Court on the same day” under Section 384 BNSS could not be narrowly interpreted as ordinary office hours. According to the judgment, judicial work frequently extends beyond scheduled timings, especially in remand and urgent matters.
On the argument regarding lack of specific allegations, the Court said the proceedings contained sufficient factual narration at this stage and that disputed questions relating to CCTV footage and the role of individual advocates could not be examined in a quashing petition.
Dismissing the batch of petitions, the High Court concluded that no ground existed to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to terminate the proceedings at the show cause stage.
The Court held that the advocates would still have an opportunity to place their defence before the Magistrate and contest the allegations during further proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: S. Rajmohan v. The Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai & connected matters
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.1514, 1617, 1623, 1624 & 4711 of 2026
Judge: Justice L. Victoria Gowri
Decision Date: April 30, 2026
