In M.B. Sujith Vs The Secretary Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and 2 Ors., [W.P. No. 9111 of 2024], the Madras High Court prohibited the use of prefixes, suffixes, titles or degrees including military title or awards or academic distinctions in filing cases, vakalatnama and in all Court proceedings and directed the Registrar (judicial) to ensure that prefixes, suffixes, titles, distinctions, degrees are not used by the advocates while filing cases, vakalatnama and in all court proceedings.
![](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/b1e3dd_2b0a02e1cc294e49bf22629c404603a5~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_735,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/b1e3dd_2b0a02e1cc294e49bf22629c404603a5~mv2.jpg)
CASE SUMMARY
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner had lodged a complaint against the 2nd Respondent on 22.03.2024 before the 1st Respondent (The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) disclosing that a criminal case had been registered against the 2nd Respondent by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Prosecution Unit, Air Cargo Commissionerate alleging smuggling of gold bars inside the Airport Campus. The 2nd Respondent was discharged by the trial Court and that however the criminal case was restored by an order of the Revisional Court. During the interregnum period of discharge and the order of the Revision Court, the 2nd Respondent enrolled himself as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Petitioner also alleged that the 2nd Respondent was using the title “Lieutenant Colonel” as a prefix to his name in all case filings, which is an abuse of his position as a retired Lieutenant Colonel. Since no action was forthcoming from the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner preferred the petition seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the 1st Respondent to conduct a through enquiry on his representation dated 22.03.2024 and consequently take appropriate action on the same.
DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court took note of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balaji Raghavan vs Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 361, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing the scope of Article 18 of the Constitution of India observed that “title” means a title of honour, rank, function or office in which there is distinctive appellation and since military and academic distinctions such as General, Colonel, Professor etc do carry suffixes or prefixes, the framers of the Constitution expressly mentioned that they would be exempted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after delving in to the legislative intent behind Article 18, expressed that, “the framers did not intend that the State should not officially recognise merit or work of an extraordinary nature. They, however, mandated that the honour conferred by the State should not be used as suffixes or prefixes i.e. as titles, by the recipients.”
The Hon’ble Madras High Court, categorically expressed that once Navy, Army or Air Force Officers, once enrolled as an advocate they are bound by the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules and enrolment of their names cannot be made with prefixes or suffixes of academic or miliary distinctions. It further cited Rule 23 (a) Part IX of the General Principles to be followed by the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India Rules for Supervision and Control by the Bar Council of India which states that the names of the advocates must be entered in the rolls without suffixes, prefixes, titles or degrees. It further noted that the Ministry of Defence in its proceedings No. G. 28 (1/82/D(Coord)) dated 27.07.1983 restricted the use of military titles except in certain exceptional circumstances and issued specific instructions to prevent misuse of military ranks by non-entitled persons.
The Court stated that advocates as a homogeneous class cannot be discriminated and hence prefixes, suffixes, titles or degrees if allowed would result in causing prejudice to the professional interest of other advocates. Under the provisions of the Advocates Act, an advocate enrolled has got a duty not only towards the Court, but also against his colleagues and litigants. Any such discrimination or usage of suffixes, prefixes, titles or degrees would result in taking undue advantage in a legal profession for personal gains.
DIRECTION:
Ultimately, the Hon’ble High Court issued a direction to the 1st Respondent to conduct an enquiry and pass orders on merits as per the provisions of the Advocates Act with respect to the allegation of enrolment after providing liberty to the 2nd Respondent to present documents or statements to the Bar Council. The Court prohibited the use of prefixes, suffixes, titles or degrees including military title or awards or academic distinctions in filing cases, vakalatnama and in all Court proceedings and directed the Registrar (judicial) to ensure that prefixes, suffixes, titles, distinctions, degrees are not used by the advocates while filing cases, vakalatnama and in all court proceedings.
Date of the judgment: 25.06.2024
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. Mahalingam;
Counsel for 1st Respondent: Mr. M.R. Jothimanian;
Counsel for 2nd Respondent: Mrs. S.P. Aarthi
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece. The judgment was summarised by our colleague, advocate AKSHAYAA BENJAMIN.)
Commentaires