Judgment :- ARUNACHALAM, J. Both these petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the cause is the same. These two petitions, preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by the daughter and the father respectively, are now before us, on the orders passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, though earlier these two petitions were heard by another Division Bench constituted by K. Venkataswamy, J. and Swamidurai, J. The other bench passed an order on 21-6-1993 which reads, that the petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, wanted this writ petition to be heard by some other Bench and in fact on her instructions her Counsel had already preferred a petition pleading for transfer. The Division Bench has stated as follows :- "In view of that, we do not want to hear these two cases and we direct the office to place the papers before our Lord, the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for posting these two cases before some other Bench." Thereafter, on the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, both these petitions were listed before us yesterday. 2. Mr. Rupert J. Barnabas, learned Counsel representing the petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, placed before us the earlier affidavit sworn to by Amudha, his client, in support of her petition to post both these petitions, before some other Division Bench. We do not intend narrating all the details found in the affidavit of Amudha. But it would suffice to say, that she would allege, that this Court had infringed on her fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution and against her will. She has further stated that her right to live as guaranteed under Art. 21 and Art. 19(1)(d), of the Constitution of India had been overlooked by the Division Bench. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of both these petitions will have to be narrated. Amudha, petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993 is undoubtedly a major, her date of birth, according to School record, being 12-5-1973. However, Amudha claims, that her actual date of birth is 12-6-1973. This difference has no significance, for in any event, Amudha is a major. 3rd respondent, Appachi, in this writ petition is the father of Amudha. The first respondent is the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, E. 2 Royapettah Police Station, Madras while the 2nd respondent is the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Madras. This difference has no significance, for in any event, Amudha is a major. 3rd respondent, Appachi, in this writ petition is the father of Amudha. The first respondent is the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, E. 2 Royapettah Police Station, Madras while the 2nd respondent is the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Madras. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ of certiorary Mandamus or direction of a similar nature to call for the records comprised in FIR Crime No. 1714 of 1992 pending on the file of first respondent, quash the same and direct the second respondent to provide protection from arrest and illegal detention by his Department. 4. Amudha would allege in her affidavit, that the 3rd respondent was attempting to get her married to Rajendra, her maternal uncle, against her will. She would also claim, that the said Rajendran is married and has children. In view of her disinclination to marry Rajendran, her father, the third respondent, with the aid of Rajendran, commenced illtreating her. She had to lead a life of torture. She was detained in a room under lock and key, without even making provisions for food and water. Somehow or other in the last week of Nov. 1992, she managed to escape from the cluthches of her father and uncle. She has stated in her affidavit that she went UNDERGROUND. However, the underground mentioned by the petitioner, appears to refer to the residence one Elakuvan at Madras and/or residence of respondents 1 and 2, Jayaseelan, and Venkataraj, in R.C.P. No. 659 of 1993. Amudha became aware, according to her affidavit, that on 26-11-1992 her father had preferred a complaint before the first respondent, alleging that she was found missing from the Clinic of a doctor. On 8-1-1993, she preferred through her advocate an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in Criminal O.P. No. 434 of 1992. This Court granted her the relief prayed for on 12-1-1993. In pursuance of the order of this Court enlarging her on bail in the event of arrest, she executed bonds along with her sureties before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, on 21-1-1993. This Court granted her the relief prayed for on 12-1-1993. In pursuance of the order of this Court enlarging her on bail in the event of arrest, she executed bonds along with her sureties before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, on 21-1-1993. On 23-1-1993, she issued a notice through her lawyer, to the 3rd respondent her father and petitioner in H.C.P. No. 659 of 1993, narrating her enlargement on anticipatory bail and calling upon him not to interfere with her liberties, she being a major. This notice was received by R. 3 on 9-2-1993. It was thereafter on 1-3-1993, this writ petition was preferred by the petitioner. 5. Initially this writ petition was listed before a learned single Judge who was of the opinion that matters of this nature had to be placed before a Division Bench of this Court. On orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this writ petition was listed before Venkataswami, J. and Swamidurai J. on 18-3-1993. Notice of motion returnable by 31-3-1993 was ordered. The petitioner's counsel was permitted to take private notice. 6. Meanwhile Appachi, father of Amudha preferred HCP No. 659 of 1993 on 13-4-1993 before this Court, wherein Respondents are Jayaseelan, Venkataraj, Inspector of Police, Royapettah Police Station and the Director-General of Police, Madras-4. He has prayed for issue of a habeas corpus for production of his daughter Amudha, before this Court, for being set at liberty. The same Division Bench on 19-4-1993 directed this HCP to be posted along with W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, on 22-4-1993, in the chambers of the senior Judge. 7. Appachi has alleged in his affidavit that his only daughter Amudha was studying at Avinasilingam Home Science College at Coimbatore. She was a student in the B. Sc. Class. She was in the habit of visiting them at Salem frequently during week ends and other holidays. He was desirous of building a house in New Fairlands at Salem, in 1991. For the said purpose, he had requisitioned the services of Jayaseelan (first respondent), an Engineering Contractor, aged about 45 years. The said Jayaseelan, moved very closely with the members of his family. According to Appachi, Jayaseelan had polluted the mind of his daughter. His daughter Amudha had fallen a prey to the entreaties of Jayaseelan and has developed a sort of infatuation for him, Advice tendered to Amudha by him and his wife, fell on deaf ears. The said Jayaseelan, moved very closely with the members of his family. According to Appachi, Jayaseelan had polluted the mind of his daughter. His daughter Amudha had fallen a prey to the entreaties of Jayaseelan and has developed a sort of infatuation for him, Advice tendered to Amudha by him and his wife, fell on deaf ears. He has stated in his affidavit, that they went over to the clinic of a medical practitioner at 6 p.m. on 26-11-1992 and while he and his wife went inside the consultation room of the doctor, his daughter Amudha was waiting in the lounge. When they returned after ten minutes Amudha was missing. After diligent search for his daughter in several places, he chose to prefer a complaint before the first respondent, leading to registration of Crime No. 1714 of 1992. He has further stated in his affidavit, that on the morning of 26-11-1992, he advised his daughter to concentrate on her studies and that he would select a suitable and eligible groom for her, after she obtained her degree. He became aware, that his daughter Amudha, was under illegal custody of Jayaseelan who was able to make her dance to his tunes. The affidavit further alleges, that on the instigation of Jayaseelan, Amudha had preferred a false complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Salem, that her life was in danger and on that score, she had asked for police protection. 8. Petitioner Appachi, would further alleges that Jayaseelan is not a man of good morals, since he has married twice and certain divorced petitions are also pending. He has also stated that yet another woman had also intervened in the life of Jayaseelan. His anxiety, as a dutiful and affectionate father was that his daughter should not fall a prey to the endless immoral pursuits of a person like Jayseelan. The further averment in the affidavit is that 'Jayaseelan has lured and brian washed the mind of petitioner's daughter Amudha, and only as a puppet in his hands, she has given police complaints and petitions, before this Hon'ble Courts, with false allegations." "Venkataraj is none other than the brother of Jayaseelan. The further averment in the affidavit is that 'Jayaseelan has lured and brian washed the mind of petitioner's daughter Amudha, and only as a puppet in his hands, she has given police complaints and petitions, before this Hon'ble Courts, with false allegations." "Venkataraj is none other than the brother of Jayaseelan. Petitioner Appachi has claimed, that though he was fully aware, that his daughter is a major and has every legal right to choose the path of her life." he owed a moral duty to guide his daughter in her views and acts. It is under those circumstances, in mental anguish, he claims to have preferred this HCP. 9. Amudha was produced before the other Division Bench on 22-4-1993, 26-4-1993, 28-4-1993; 29-4-1993, and 30-4-1993. Learned Judges had questioned her. She appears to have expressed her desire, not to join her parents. Mr. Rupert J. Barnabas stated before us, that Amudha had told the other Division Bench, that she was not kidnapped, drugged or used for any unlawful purpose. She had left her her house on her own accord and was not interested in getting into the family-fold of her father. 10. In view of the nature of allegations made by the petitioners, in both these petitions, apparently the other Division Bench felt, that interests of justice would demand, that petitioner Amudha must be kept aloof from her father as well from Jayaseelan and Venkataraj for some-time, so that she would have an opportunity to weigh the pros and cons and arrive at a conclusion independently, on her own, about her future, without any extraneous influence. Initially when it was suggested by the earlier Bench, that she can be placed in a Government Home for Girls, it was objected to on the ground that such Homes would house under trial prisoners and other criminals and hence it would be safe to send Amudha to Young Women's Christians Association. It was so ordered. On a later occasion during a special sitting of the same earlier Bench during summer vacation a plea was made to send her to Women Christian Hostel, since Amudha felt that she had no freedom whatever in Young Women's Christian Association where she was kept in solitary confinement. The other Division Bench acceded to this request too and put her in Women's Christian Hostel, from where, she presented herself before us yesterday. The other Division Bench acceded to this request too and put her in Women's Christian Hostel, from where, she presented herself before us yesterday. In between HCMP filed, to permit counsel to meet Amudha, in her place of stay, was also permitted. 10A. These facts clearly show, that the earlier Division Bench was so conscious of this human problem. 11. It is rather unfortunate, that the petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, has chosen to cast aspersions against the other Division Bench, before whom she had laid bare her case seeking protection, but still would make totally unjustified and baseless averments in the affidavits sworn to by her. Learned counsel representing the petitioner ought to have realised that he was an officer of this court and he owed a duty, not to allow unfounded and reckless allegations, to form part of the affidavit sworn to by Amudha. Litigant public as well as Members of the Legal Fraternity owe a duty to protect the Majesty of this Institution. 12. Of late, we find that a disease, more dreadful and virulent than cancer, is attempting to peep its head into this Institution, in the form of unfounded allegations made in affidavits, seeking to undermine the dignity of the justice delivery system. It is always possible in law to have reaonable apprehension remedied, but if litigants choose to denigrate this Institution without rhyme or reason and on no foundation even remotely plausible, aided by some members of the Bar on a misconceived bravado, such acts will have to be nipped in the bud. 13. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram, AIR 1989 SC 1433 : (1989 Lab IC 1374) has observed as follows at page 1435 (of AIR) :- "No party is entitled to get a case transferred from one Bench to the other, unless the Bench is biased or there are some reasonable grounds for the same, but no right to get a case transferred to any other Bench, can legitimately be claimed merely because the Judges express opinion on the merits of the case on the conclusion of hearing." In that case, on conclusion of the oral hearing, Supreme Court expressed its opinion, in the open court, that it was inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. However, taking a sympathetic view, based on the request of counsel appearing for the party to obtain certain instructions, a further opportunity was granted. However, the said opportunity was misused by the party by raising mischievous and frivolous objections for transfer of case from one bench to another instead of filing written submissions. The prayer for transfer was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was more so since oral hearing had already been completed. 14. As observed by Ratnavel Pandian, J., speaking on behalf of the Division Bench in Staff of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) at page 531 (of Cri LJ) :- "In our democratic policy under the Constitution based on concept or "Rule of Law" which we have adopted and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democrattic system, the Law is Supreme". Those observations are so relevant, if we look into the manner in which reckless allegations are made day in and day out even without any shred of material. The long arm of Law is capable of rectifying this malady by punitive action, but most often restraint, an outcome of magnanim steps in. Administration of law by Courts is founded on equity and good conscience as well, and not on mere technicality. Peculiarity of facts in each cause determines the nature of application of law. 15. Bakthavatsalam J., in M. Ranka v. Honourable Chief Justice of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 2 LW 98 ) after reviewing the case law on this subject has observed as hereunder :- "No person can claim as a matter of right that his petition be heard by a single Judge or a Division Bench .......... No Judge or a Bench of Judges will assume jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice." 16. In L. D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1374 : (1984 Cri LJ 993), the Supreme Court stated as follows at page 994 (of Cri LJ) :- "We have yet to come across a Judge, who can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties. By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of the institution. A line has, therefore, to be drawn somewhere, some day, by some one ....". 17. As rightly observed by Bakthavatsalam, J., "when a counsel undertakes his profession, he not only carries greater responsibilities but he should also act as a model to the profession. The majesty of law and the dignity of the Courts cannot be maintained unless there is mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar and the Counsel act along side their duty to their clients when their pleas and arguments do not find acceptance with the Court." We add, that the counsel owe a duty to the Society as well. Counsel are expected to practise a sense of detachment and non-identification with the cause espoused by them. 18. Lord Reid in Rondel v. Worsley, (1967) 3 All ER 993 (HL) has observed as follows at page 998 :- "Every counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his client's case. As an officer of the Court concerned in the administration of Justice, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client's wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests. Counsel must not mislead the Court, he must not lead himself to casting aspersions on the other party or witnesses for which there is no sufficient basis in the information in his possession, he must not withhold authorities or documents which may tell against his clients but which the law of the standards of his profession require him to produce. By so acting he may well incur the displeasure or worry of his client so that if the case is lost, his client would or might seek legal redress if that were open to him ......... It is a mistake the suppose that he is the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants. By so acting he may well incur the displeasure or worry of his client so that if the case is lost, his client would or might seek legal redress if that were open to him ......... It is a mistake the suppose that he is the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants. He must disregard, the most specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the Court. The Code which requires a Barrister to do all this, is not a Code of law. It is a Code of honour. If he breaks it, he is offending against the rules of the profession and is subject to its discipline ....". 19. This is a glaring case, where the petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, has chosen to make reckless allegations, without any basis whatsoever, against the other Division Bench. She appears to be under a phobla, that once she claims to be a major, the Court had no discretion in the matter and she had to be sent out of the Court hall, without any investigation or enquiry, purely based on her statement. 20. A litigant cannot always expect to get the order he or she desires from Court and if such expectation does not lead to success, cannot come down against the Court, by hurling reckless allegations, without any foundation. As we have already stated interest of the other Division Bench was obviously to obtain the untainted desire of Amudha, before any decision could be taken finally, for, allegations and counter allegations, of a very serious nature form part of the Court record. 21. However, Amudha, petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993 and Mr. Repert J. Barnabas, her counsel have unconditionally tendered their apologies before us. Courts have always been magnanimous, when there is sincere repentance. We have no reason to hold that the repentance of Amudha and her learned counsel is not sincere. We leave it at that and we do not intend taking any further action on petitioner Amudha and her Counsel. 22. We would like to add, that Members of the Bar must act with restraint and their concern must be to upheld dignity of this great Institution and justice delivery system. This jurisdiction shall not be used as a means to uphold ones own presumed dignity, which must rest on surer foundation. 22. We would like to add, that Members of the Bar must act with restraint and their concern must be to upheld dignity of this great Institution and justice delivery system. This jurisdiction shall not be used as a means to uphold ones own presumed dignity, which must rest on surer foundation. As observed by Lord Denning we do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something for more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself. The Bar should endeavour to strengthen this pillar of administration of justice and should not fall a prey to the machination of disgruntled litigants. If there is a cause, a cause just and worthwhile, - the Bar shall stand up to it, but once they are sure that derogation of Institution was in the background, they shall repel it. We say no more. 23. We will revert back to the disposal of these two petitions. Yesterday (5-7-1993) afternoon we enquired in our chambers, Amudha. She is not only a major, but also a person who is fully able to understand the questions put to her and answer them with ease. She appears to be quite clear in her thoughts and she is categoric that she is not prepared to join her parents. She is further certain, that she has not decided either, to join respondents 1 and 2 in HCP No. 659 of 1993. Her immediate anxiety is to get back to her job in Gokulam Chit funds for some time, before she can formulate plans for her future. She is specific, that she has no love towards her parents, but loves her grandmother, who after encompassed her in her affectionate arms. She is not even prepared to stay with her grandmother since her uncle, Rajendran is staying with her. Even otherwise she has a fear complex that wherever she may stay with her grandmother, she may not be beyond the reach of her parents and maternal uncle. We also examined the parents of Amudha, who reiterated their tale of woe as stated in the affidavit sworn to by Appachi in H.C.P. No. 659 of 1993. We were able to see the grandmother and the granddaughter in a hug of momentary affection; but nothing more turned out. 24. We also examined the parents of Amudha, who reiterated their tale of woe as stated in the affidavit sworn to by Appachi in H.C.P. No. 659 of 1993. We were able to see the grandmother and the granddaughter in a hug of momentary affection; but nothing more turned out. 24. As far as HCP No. 659 of 1993 is concerned, we have no alternative other than dismissing it, for Amudha is a major girl and she is certain that she is not in illegal custody or wrongful confinement. She is able to move about on her own volition. She is emphatic that she is not desirous of joining her father. As a major, Amudha is entitled to decide her own future. We find no merit in HCP No. 653 of 1993. We accordingly dismiss it. 25. As far as W.P. No. 4089 of 1993 is concerned, it also deserves dismissal. Since a writ of certiorarified mandamus has been entertained, we have to give it a disposal. When an alternate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction cannot normally be invoked. If the petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, is aggrieved against registration of Crime No. 1714 of 1992, her remedy would be to move a petition under S. 432, Cr.P.C. However, even otherwise, Crime No. 1714 of 1992, registered under S. 174, Cr.P.C. (missing of a woman), can no longer survive, since Amudha is very much available and not missing at all. On that ground also, this writ petition deserves dismissal. As far as the second prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to provide protection from arrest and illegal detention by his Department is concerned, it is apparent, that a blanket order is prayed for cannot be acceded to. Again as far as Crime No. 1714 of 1992 is concerned, admittedly Amudha has obtained an order of bail in the event of arrest and in pursuance of the same had executed bonds with sureties. An order to the Director General of Police, Madras, not to arrest or detain the petitioner in A.P. No. 4089 of 1993, under any circumstances, can never be made. Such an order in respect of Crime No. 1714 of 1992 will also be superfluous, in view of the anticipatory bail order already passed by this Court, in her favour. W.P. No. 4089 of 1993 has no merit whatever and it shall stand dismissed. 26. Such an order in respect of Crime No. 1714 of 1992 will also be superfluous, in view of the anticipatory bail order already passed by this Court, in her favour. W.P. No. 4089 of 1993 has no merit whatever and it shall stand dismissed. 26. It is still more unfortunate, that Mr. D. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, and the petitioner in HCP 659/93, chose to represent before us this morning, that his client was interested in changing the counsel, to advance further arguments and hence we should defer pronouncement of this order. This request was negatived, since we have heard Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. D. Sivakumar in extenso yesterday. Arguments were concluded in the presence of parties. For want of time, these petitions were listed for orders today. There is nothing much to choose between either party in this litigation for in their view changing counsel or the Judges is so simple as the daily ritual of changing shirts and that has nothing Sancrosanct about it. We hope this sad state of affairs will cease at least in future for that alone can preserve the dignity of this Institution and that of the legal fraternity. Petitions dismissed.