Judgment :- (Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus for the reasons as stated therein.) K. Chandru, J. The petitioner, Madras High Court Advocates' Association (for short, 'MHAA'), being a largest body of Advocates in India, has filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint a State Level Committee and District Level Committee pursuant to the recommendations made by this Court on 18.4.2006 to deal with exclusive problems between the Police and the lawyers. 2. The Association, represented by Mr.Paul Kanakaraj, sent a letter dated 26.7.2006 informing this Court about the three incidents relating to Police involving three Advocates. In that letter, the President of the Association also mentioned about the letter dated 18.4.2006 written by this Court to the Government about its desire to reconstitute the Committee both at the State level and District level to go into the complaints of Advocates against the Police officials and request was made to publish the same in the Government Gazette after the issuance of necessary G.O. in this regard. 3. On receipt of this letter, the matter was treated as suo motu writ petition and notice was ordered to the first and second respondents. In the meanwhile, one MO.Kandasamy Singh claiming to be the General Secretary of All India Advocates' Association (SC/ST/OBC & Minorities) got impleaded as the third respondent and Women Lawyers’ Association, represented by its Secretary Mrs.Kovi Ramalingam also got impleaded as the fourth respondent by order of this Court dated 05.9.2006. The State was directed to file a status report with reference to the three incidents pointed out by the petitioner Association. 4. After much delay, the report dated 05.9.2006 was filed by the Inspector General of Police (Administration), Chennai – 4. After refuting the allegations made against the Police, the Officer has stated that the Police officials have high regards for the Advocates and there has been a minor misunderstanding due to lack of identification or interference in the regular enquiry of investigation and if any complaint is brought to the notice of the Police officials, immediate action will be taken by them to redress their grievance. 5. 5. We are not satisfied with the status report filed in the form of counter affidavit by the Inspector General of Police (Administration) and inspite of the fact that the matter was adjourned several times and the Government Pleader was directed to inform this Court about the status of the letter sent by the Registry to the Government, there has been no response. Under these circumstances, we decided to dispose of the writ petition on the merits of the case. 6. We have heard the arguments of Mr.Paul Kanakaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.G.Sasidevi, learned counsel representing the fourth respondent Women Lawyers’ Association and Kandasamy Singh, third respondent herein as well as Mr.Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader representing the State. 7. Genesis: Resort by the Bar, to direct action including Court boycott on account of clashes between the Advocates and the Police in this State, is over three decades old. The attack against one Advocate V.Ayyadurai belonging to the Madurai Bar by the Deputy Inspector of Police in the Thirupparankundram Police Station in the year 1979 resulted in Madurai Bar going on direct action and the said issue spread all over the State and they did not even spare the High Court Advocates from being involved in the said protest. For the first time, the High Court Bar went on direct action paralyzing the entire system for nearly two months. 8. Justice C.J.R. Paul Commission: 8.1. On account of the State level agitation by the lawyers, the first respondent appointed Justice C.J.R. Paul, Judge of this Court, as a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 vide G.O.No.695 Public (Law and Order - A) Department dated 09.4.1979. The terms of the Commission included both the allegation of attack on the lawyers as well as whether there was any misconduct on the part of the Deputy Inspector of Police relating to the incident dated 24.02.1979. Only upon the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry and transfer of the concerned Police officials from out of the Police Station, the agitation was withdrawn. Thereafter, the Advocates actively participated in the Commission. The Commission gave a report dated 06.11.1979. The findings of the Commission were also accepted by the State in their Action Taken Report and some of the findings of the Commission are extracted below: ".... Thereafter, the Advocates actively participated in the Commission. The Commission gave a report dated 06.11.1979. The findings of the Commission were also accepted by the State in their Action Taken Report and some of the findings of the Commission are extracted below: ".... The conduct of Thiru Ayyadurai (Advocate) therefore, at that juncture was not proper and would amount to misconduct." (Page 20) ".... In all likelihood, there was only exchange of blows between Thiru Ayyadurai and the Deputy Inspector, after which, on the orders of the Deputy Inspector, the Sub-Inspector and the Police Constables caught hold of Thiru Ayyadurai and put him in the lock-up. Even it was Thiru Ayyadurai who dealt the first blow and first assaulted, the Deputy Inspector the latter as a Police Officer who was on duty in that police station should not have retaliated; but should have restrained himself." (Page 26) ".... Even assuming that Thiru Ayyadurai had offered grave provocation either by means of words or actions, it was improper on the part of Thiru Rajagopal to have assaulted Thiru Ayyadurai or to have manhandled him as he undoubtedly died, and even assuming that it was not Thiru Ayyadurai who first assaulted the Deputy Inspector but that it was the Deputy Inspector who first assaulted him, it was improper conduct on the part of Thiru Ayyadurai to have first of all interfered with the enquiry conducted either by the Sub-Inspector or by the Deputy Inspector and to have uttered words or did something to provoke the Deputy Inspector. The cannons of ethics in the legal profession also enjoins courteousness, fairness and due consideration on the part of a lawyer." (Page 27) "... As I have already found Thiru Ayyadurai's conduct at the police station that evening was improper and would amount to misconduct, for while he had no right of audience before the police officer who conducted the enquiry and was merely there by sufferance he had interfered with the conduct of the enquiry, interrupted the enquiry. ......... Undoubtedly the conduct of Thiru Rajagopal was also improper and would amount to misconduct, for instead of exercising self-restraint and instead of remaining calm and in good humour inspite of the provocation as required under Order 101-A of the Police Standing Orders- Volume I, he had exchanged blows with Thiru Ayyadruai." (Page 29) 8.2. ......... Undoubtedly the conduct of Thiru Rajagopal was also improper and would amount to misconduct, for instead of exercising self-restraint and instead of remaining calm and in good humour inspite of the provocation as required under Order 101-A of the Police Standing Orders- Volume I, he had exchanged blows with Thiru Ayyadruai." (Page 29) 8.2. Perhaps, it is because the Commission squarely blamed both the parties, viz., the Advocates and Police, the first respondent State accepted the recommendation in their Action Taken Report and placed the following note before the Legislature. "4. After careful consideration for the Inquiry report and the connected records, the Government accept the above findings of the Commission. They consider that it is necessary to take suitable action against Thiru K.Rajagopal, Deputy Inspector, Thirupparankundram Police Station for having violated the provisions in Police Standing Order 101-A and for not exercising self-restraint and calmness in the circumstances then prevailed and for having indulged in exchanging of blows with Thiru V.Ayyadurai, Advocate. 5. A copy of the findings of the Commission will be sent to the Bar Council, Madras for such action as deemed fit against the Advocate Thiru. V.Ayyadurai." (Page 2) 8.3. The Commission was not called upon to make any solution to future issues that may crop up refrained from giving any suggestions. As time seems to be the only healing factor, by the time the report came, the surcharged feelings got subsidized and the entire issue had even become forgotten. 8.4. However, a Committee on Police – Lawyer Cordial Relationship' was formed but it never took off from its inception. However, it became a frequent affair for the lawyers to resort to direct action whenever there is an incident involving them with the Police and when the lawyers felt either they were humiliated or assaulted for unjustifiable reasons. Sometimes, the events were not even related to their professional right to practice. The High Court Bar was no exception to the same and many times, this Court was also paralysed on many local issues including the strained relationship between the Police and the members of the Bar. 8.5. Sometimes, the events were not even related to their professional right to practice. The High Court Bar was no exception to the same and many times, this Court was also paralysed on many local issues including the strained relationship between the Police and the members of the Bar. 8.5. In the case of attack against Mr.K.M.Vijayan (presently a Senior Advocate) during the year 1984, the Supreme Court directed that his assault case should be transferred for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation in view of the allegation that the investigation by the local Police may not inspire confidence of the Court. 9. Varadhan Commission: 9.1. Once again, due to certain incidents that took place on 31.01.1995 at Madurai in respect of one Advocate Deivendran and also in respect of one Advocate Murali at Chennai on 02.02.2005, after prolonged agitation by the Bar, the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.221 Public (Law and Order - F) Department dated 08.3.1995 constituted a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 and appointed Mr.K.E.Varadhan, a retired District Judge as the Commission of Inquiry. The terms of reference of the said Commission are extracted below: "(i) to inquire into the incident of the alleged assault of Thiru Deivendran, an Advocate of Madurai, by Thiru Ganesan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathichiyam Police Station, Madurai on 31st January 1995; (ii) to inquire into the incident of the alleged assault of Thiru Murali, an Advocate of Saidapet Court, by Thiru Sudalaimuthu, Head Constable of Pallikaranai Police Station, Chengalpattu MGR district on 2nd February 1995" 9.2. The Commission, after conducting elaborate inquiry in respect of the Madurai incident, held as follows: "12. For the foregoing reasons, this Commission is of the view, that the allegations of Thiru Deivendran, Advocate of assault on his person by Thiru Ganesan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathichiyam Police Station, are not true and that the said Thiru Ganesan cannot be faulted on any basis in the discharge of his duties while causing the legitimate arrest of Thiru Ponnaian, the father of the said Advocate at the latter's residence at 6.30 pm. on 30th January 1995, in the course of his investigation into the complaint (Exhibit No.15) laid by Thiru Alagarsamy (W.No.9)." (Page 7) 9.3. In respect of the Madras incident, the Commission held as follows: "22..... on 30th January 1995, in the course of his investigation into the complaint (Exhibit No.15) laid by Thiru Alagarsamy (W.No.9)." (Page 7) 9.3. In respect of the Madras incident, the Commission held as follows: "22..... that the allegation of assault on Thiru Murali made against Thiru Sudalaimuthu, Head Constable attached to the Pallikkaranai Police Station during the subject incident on the night of 2nd February 1995, IS NOT TRUE." (Page 14) 9.4. The Commission also made the following observations and recommendations at page 16 (para 26) of its Report dated 07.8.1996: "26. .... On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts in various States, have deprecated the agitational attitude of the members of the Bar, by way of staging boycott of Courts or indulging in violence, during demonstrations by them, against the conduct and actions of Police personnel. ....... Above all there is the general apprehension of the Advocates that they are not being properly respected and treated in their professional representation of their clients before the Police authority. The Advocate-General has recalled that the State Government had earlier constituted a "Committee on Police-Lawyer cordial relationship", to resolve the dispute relating to the clash in Nagercoil. The fact remains that the said committee did not forward any detailed report, as the same had successfully solved the conflict by negotiation. The Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as also some of the district Bar Associations have suggested a similar committee as a permanent measure, to maintain the cordial relationship between the Police and Advocates." "Bearing in mind the contents of affidavits and representations received as also the above factors, this Commission makes the following suggestions:- (i) The State Government may constitute "Committees on Police-Lawyer cordial relationship", one for the Madras City consisting of a sitting Judge of the High Court to be nominated by the Hon`ble Chief Justice of Madras, as Chairman, with the State Bar Council Chairman and Director- General of Police, as members and similar Committee in each district consisting of the District and Sessions Judge as Chairman with the President of the relevant Bar Associations and the Commissioner or Superintendent of Police as members. In the event of any confrontation between an Advocate or Advocates on the one hand and the Police personnel on the other, it shall be open to the aggrieved party to petition the above stated relevant committee and seek its advice in resolving the conflict. It is presumed that the Advocates would desist from resorting to agitations and boycott of Courts on that score." (Page 16) 9.5. The Government accepted the findings of the Varadhan Commission in its Action Taken Report vide G.O.SS.No.II/351-5/96 dated 25.11.1996 and the operative portion of the finding, which is found at appendix page 7 of the Report, is extracted below: "3. The Government accept the above findings and recommendations of the Commission. 4. While accepting, in principle, the findings of the Commission, the Government have decided that the specific suggestions/recommendations made by the Commission will be examined further in detail by the Home Department for issue of suitable orders." 10. It was during the pendency of the hearing by the Commission, one Advocate Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram (presently, a Senior Advocate) was criminally assaulted at his house on 30.5.1995 by some miscreants and a writ petition was filed by MHAA (petitioner Association) being W.P.No.7826 of 1995 before this Court and this Court by its judgment dated 20.6.1995 reported in 1995 WRIT L.R. 441 (Madras High Court Advocates' Association, represented by its Honourary Secretary vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) directed the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the relevant portion in paragraph 21 and 24 of the order is extracted below: "Para 21: Following the above said Principles, I am of the view that without any disregard to the State Police, I direct the investigation in Crime No.895/95 on the file of the third respondent Inspector of Police, G.3 Kilpauk Police Station be entrusted to the C.B.I., the fourth respondent herein for the purpose of investigation. The C.B.I. is directed to complete the investigation and file the report within four months from today. The first respondent herein is directed to extend all help and co-operation to the fourth respondent C.B.I. in completing the investigation. ........................................................... Para 24: Hence there may be possibility that the family members and the other persons who were with the victim at that time might have had apprehension that the victim may not get proper treatment if he is to be admitted in the General Hospital. ........................................................... Para 24: Hence there may be possibility that the family members and the other persons who were with the victim at that time might have had apprehension that the victim may not get proper treatment if he is to be admitted in the General Hospital. Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances and in the interest of justice, I think it would be proper to direct the first respondent, the State of Tamilnadu to bear the medical expenses that has to be incurred by the victim Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram." The State was also directed to bear the expenditure of the medical expenses incurred by the family of the said Advocate. 11. Committee comes into Existence: All these resulted in paralyzing the entire institution and the boycott had become off late, a repeated exercise and each time, the lawyers will have to go to streets to get their grievances resolved. Perhaps, it is with this background in view, Varadhan Commission recommended the formation of a Committee and the Government also passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.744 Home (Police) Department dated 17.7.2000. Under the said order, the Government, after getting approval from this Court, formed a Police - Advocate Cordial relationship Committee in all the Districts for the purpose of resolving the grievance between the Police and the lawyers. For the purpose of Madras City, a Committee was constituted consisting of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court or the Registrar, Madras as the President and the Chairman of Bar Council as Member and the Additional Commissioner, Chennai Police as second Member. In respect of the Districts, it was stated that the District and Sessions Judge was its President and the President of the District or Town Bar Association will be one of the Member and either the Commissioner of Police or the Superintendent of Police of the District will be the second Member. The efficacy of such Committee and its functioning was not visible considering the fact that the incident of boycott were only on increase and the functioning of the Committees in resolving the dispute between the lawyer and Police has not made any appreciable change. 12. Right to strike by lawyers: Apparently, this phenomenon is not confined only to this State, going by the observations made by the Supreme Court vide its decision reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 (Ex-Capt. 12. Right to strike by lawyers: Apparently, this phenomenon is not confined only to this State, going by the observations made by the Supreme Court vide its decision reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 (Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another), which is as follows: "Para 2: .... The phenomenon of going on strike at the slightest provocation is on the increase. Strikes and calls for boycott have paralysed the functioning of courts for a number of days. Para 20: Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before them and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. .......................................................... Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh case that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyers duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Ramon Services case that the advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call. Para 21: It must also be remembered that an advocate is an officer of the court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the court. They owe a duty to their clients. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the court. They owe a duty to their clients. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. In the words of Mr H.M. Seervai, a distinguished jurist: "Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts. In my submission, he said that it is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Courts make it clear beyond doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from any body or authority in the daily administration of justice. For in no other way can the Supreme Court and the High Courts maintain the high position and exercise the great powers conferred by the Constitution and the law to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will." 13. Bar Council of India's stand: 13.1. The said issue also received the attention of the Bar Council of India vide its Minutes recorded in a joint meeting the Bar Council of India had with Chairman of various State Bar Councils on 28.9.2002 and 29.9.2002, which reads as follows: "The minutes set out that some of the causes which result in lawyers abstaining from work are: (I) Local issues 1. Disputes between lawyer/lawyers and the police and other authorities. ..... Omitted" 13.2. Disputes between lawyer/lawyers and the police and other authorities. ..... Omitted" 13.2. In the aforesaid meeting, the Bar Council of India resolved as follows: RESOLVED to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees at the taluk/sub-division or tehsil level, at the district level, High Court and Supreme Court levels as follows: (I)(a) A committee consisting of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India or his nominee, Chairman, Bar Council of India, President, Supreme Court Bar Association, Attorney-General of India. (b) At the High Court level a committee consisting of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the State High Court or his nominee, Chairman, Bar Council of the State, President or Presidents of the High Court Bar Association, Advocate-General, Member, Bar Council of India from the State. (c) At the district level, District Judge, President or Presidents of the District Bar Association, District Government Pleader, member of the Bar Council from the district, if any, and if there are more than one, then senior out of the two. (d) At taluk/tehsil/sub-division, senior most Judge, President or Presidents of the Bar Association, Government Pleader, representative of the State Bar Council, if any. (II) Another reason for abstention at the district and taluk level is arrest of an advocate or advocates by the police in matters in which the arrest is not justified. Practice may be adopted that before arrest of an advocate or advocates, President, Bar Association, the District Judge or the senior most Judge at the place be consulted. This will avoid many instances or abstentions from court. (III) IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that in the past abstention of work by advocates for more than a day was due to inaction of the authorities to solve the problems that the advocates placed. (IV) IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that in all cases of legislation affecting the legal profession which includes enactment of new laws or amendments of existing laws, matters relating to jurisdiction and creation of tribunal, the Government both Central and State should initiate the consultative process with the representatives of the profession and take into consideration the views of the Bar and give utmost weight to the same and the State Government should instruct their officers to react positively to the issues involving the profession when they are raised and take all steps to avoid confrontation and inaction and in such an event of indifference, confrontation etc. to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the erring officials and including but not limited to transfer. (V) The Councils are of the view that abstentions of work in courts should not be resorted to except in exceptional circumstances. Even in exceptional circumstances, the abstention should not be resorted to normally for more than one day in the first instance. The decision for going on abstention will be taken by the General Body of the Bar Association by a majority of two-third members present. (VI) It is further resolved that in all issues as far as possible legal and constitutional methods should be pursued such as representation to authorities, holding demonstrations and mobilising public opinion etc. (VII) It is resolved further that in case the Bar Associations deviate from the above resolutions and proceed on cessation of work in spite or without the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee concerned except in the case of emergency the Bar Council of the State will take such action as it may deem fit and proper, the discretion being left to the Bar Council of the State concerned as to enforcement of such decisions and in the case of an emergency the Bar Association concerned will inform the State Bar Council. The Bar Council of India resolves that this resolution will be implemented strictly and the Bar Associations and the individual members of the Bar Associations should take all steps to comply with the same and avoid cessation of the work except in the manner and to the extent indicated above." 14. Grievance Committee finds favour with the Apex Court: While taking note of the said move of the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court did not accept the stand of the Bar Council of India in Harish Uppal's case (cited supra) and the Supreme Court, in paragraphs 30 to 32 of its judgment, held as follows: "Para 30: Whilst we appreciate the efforts made, in view of the endemic situation prevailing in the country, in our view, the above resolutions are not enough. It was expected that the Bar Council of India would have incorporated clauses as those suggested in the interim order of this Court in their disciplinary rules. This they have failed to do even now. What is at stake is the administration of justice and the reputation of the legal profession. It was expected that the Bar Council of India would have incorporated clauses as those suggested in the interim order of this Court in their disciplinary rules. This they have failed to do even now. What is at stake is the administration of justice and the reputation of the legal profession. It is the duty and obligation of the Bar Council of India to now incorporate clauses as suggested in the interim order. Para 31: It must immediately be mentioned that one understands and sympathises with the Bar wanting to vent their grievances. But as has been pointed out there are other methods e.g. giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour armbands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. More importantly in many instances legal remedies are always available. A lawyer being part and parcel of the legal system is instrumental in upholding the rule of law. A person cast with the legal and moral obligation of upholding law can hardly be heard to say that he will take the law in his own hands. It is therefore time that self-restraint be exercised. Para 32: Now let us consider whether any of the reasons set out in the affidavit of the Bar Council of India justify a strike or call for boycott. The reasons given are: (1) Local issues. A dispute between a lawyer/lawyers and police or other authorities can never be a reason for going on even a token strike. It can never justify giving a call for boycott. In such cases an adequate legal remedy is available and it must be resorted to. ................................................. So far as problems concerning courts are concerned, we see no harm in setting up Grievance Redressal Committees as suggested. However, it must be clear that the purpose of such Committees would only be to set up a forum where grievance can be ventilated. It must be clearly understood that recommendations or suggestions of such Committees can never be binding. The deliberations and/or suggestions and/or recommendations of such Committees will necessarily have to be placed before the appropriate authority viz. the Chief Justice or the District Judge concerned. The final decision can only be of the Chief Justice concerned or the District Judge concerned. It must be clearly understood that recommendations or suggestions of such Committees can never be binding. The deliberations and/or suggestions and/or recommendations of such Committees will necessarily have to be placed before the appropriate authority viz. the Chief Justice or the District Judge concerned. The final decision can only be of the Chief Justice concerned or the District Judge concerned. Such final decision, whatever it be, would then have to be accepted by all and no question then arises of any further agitation. Lawyers must also accept the fact that one cannot have everything to be the way that one wants it to be. Realities of life are such that, in certain situations, after one has made all legal efforts to cure what one perceives as an ill, one has to accept the situation." (Emphasis added) 15. However, such grievance redressal Committees were not forthcoming and despite the orders of the Supreme Court, the Bar seems to be not concerned with the concern expressed by the Supreme Court and continued to behave as if there is no impediment on their right to go on strike on one pretext or the other. Of late, this Court has seen several agitations throughout the State of Tamil Nadu either at District level or at the State level and their most frequent grievance was that they have been treated shabbily by the Police in the society. 16. There seems to be certain ideological justification also made by some leading Advocates and well-known human rights activists. Mr.K.G.Kannabiran (leading Senior Advocate and Human Rights Activist, in his book, the Wages of Impunity 2004, (Orient Longman Publications) has given certain ideological orientation to the strike by lawyers and it is interesting to extract some portions from that book found in pages 238-240:- "A subordinated judicial system will only lend legitimacy to arbitrariness and brutality. It is this inchoate perception of things to come that is driving lawyers to collective action such as strikes. It is the overwhelming and overpowering presence of young lawyers, who are not yet sold on the laissez faire philosophy, that makes these collective actions successful. (Page 238) It does cause inconvenience, and litigants are perhaps harassed. In fact, the striking advocates may not even have public support or sympathy. But this is true of all strikes. It is the overwhelming and overpowering presence of young lawyers, who are not yet sold on the laissez faire philosophy, that makes these collective actions successful. (Page 238) It does cause inconvenience, and litigants are perhaps harassed. In fact, the striking advocates may not even have public support or sympathy. But this is true of all strikes. It is equally true that lawyers as a body keep away from protests by others, and do not raise their voice of protest against injustice outside their profession. This fragmentation and insularity are not peculiar to advocates. (Page 239) ....... When judicial remedies, the continued existence of which alone will ensure us a democratic polity, are suffering gradual eclipse and ultimate extinction, any talk about the responsibility of lawyers under the Constitution to counter collective action by lawyers sounds hollow. (Page 239) Lawyers, being part of the judiciary, which is one of the basic institutions under the Constitution, do have a constitutional obligation to intercede and prevent erosion of this institution. This institution is an instrumentality of the people. We owe it to the people and do posterity to preserve it as such. Thus, collective legal action is perhaps a healthy sign, an attempt by a professional group to transform itself into a socially useful entity." (Page 240) 17. However, such an overview of the matter had not found acceptance by the Apex Court and the decision in Harish Uppal's case (cited supra) has come to a stay. 18. We are constrained to observe that while going through the norms fixed for the subordinate Courts and when remarks have been received from many of the Subordinate Courts that the norms have not been able to be achieved because of the prolonged strike by the Advocates. This is a serious issue and if it is allowed to proceed, it may even paralyse the functioning of the judiciary, which is not in public interest. 19. Tamil Nadu Bar Council's Request for a Committee: 19.1. When these problems were highlighted in the Bench Bar meetings, it is significant to note that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu vide its Resolution No.90/2006 dated 21.01.2006, passed the following Resolution. 19. Tamil Nadu Bar Council's Request for a Committee: 19.1. When these problems were highlighted in the Bench Bar meetings, it is significant to note that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu vide its Resolution No.90/2006 dated 21.01.2006, passed the following Resolution. "It is brought to the notice of the Council that frequently, the disputes between Advocates and Police crept all over Tamil Nadu resulting in unrest among the lawyers and in order to put an end to the above situation the following resolutions are to be passed. So, also some of the Advocates are unnecessarily resorting to boycott of Courts without the knowledge of the President/Secretary of the Bar Association/Advocates Association concerned. Such boycott of Courts are decided by lawyers without bringing the issue or dispute to the notice of the learned District Judge concerned or Port Folio learned Judge of the Honourable High Court or to the Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court, who is ever willing to meet any of the representative of the Bar to sort out all their problems. So, it is also necessary to pass the following resolutions in this regard. ......................................................... That when there is any grievance for the members of the Bar, they shall represent to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu either through the Association or otherwise and upon receipt of such complaint, the Bar Council shall take such immediate action to resolve the grievances in consultation with the Honourable Chief Justice and shall also fix the appointment with the Honourable Chief Justice for the representation by the aggrieved Advocates for an immediate solution. The members of the Bar are therefore requested whatever be the provocation shall not resort to abstention from Courts and shall utilize their official machinery being the Bar Council for effective solution and to avoid further recurrence of grievance in future. The Presidents and Secretaries of the Bar Associations and Advocates Associations throughout the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry shall ensure that without exhausting this remedy, no member of the bar abstained from Court in future in the interest of maintaining cordial relationship between the Bar and the Bench." 19.2. Thus saying, the Bar Council made the following request to this Court. 1. To request the Honourable Judicial functionaries to constitute Grievances Redressal Committee at the State, District and Taluk level relating to resolve disputes that may arise between the lawyers and Police personnels. Thus saying, the Bar Council made the following request to this Court. 1. To request the Honourable Judicial functionaries to constitute Grievances Redressal Committee at the State, District and Taluk level relating to resolve disputes that may arise between the lawyers and Police personnels. (a) At the High Court level a committee consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the State High Court or his nominee, Chairman, Bar Council of the State, President of High Court Advocates' Association, Advocate General and Member, Bar Council of India from the State; (b) At the District Level, District Judge, President or Presidents of District Bar Associations, District Government Pleader, Members of the Bar Council from the District, if any and if there is none then a Member to be nominated by the State Bar Council. (c) At Taluk Senior-most Judge, President or his nominees of the Bar Associations, Government Pleader, representative of the State Bar Council, if any." 19.3. We are happy to note that at last the Bar Council has realised its statutory duty and has directed the Advocates on its Roll not to resort to any abstention of Courts. We record our appreciation to the stand taken by the State Bar Council in this regard. 20. MHAA's Request to the Court: In the same spirit, the President of the petitioner Association has also sent a letter dated 26.7.2006 stating as follows: "My Lord, it is therefore in view of the above referred incidents the association expects strong action against the concern authorities and to put an end to all these types of incidents once for all. Therefore this association is suggesting for an appointment of High level committee by My Lord Chief Justice. On 18.04.2006 our association address (sic) a notification issued by the office of my lord chief justice intimating the proposal of appointing a state level committee and the district level committee thereafter there is no reference about the appointment of such committees. In the notification the object stated therein was very good and one which is appreciable by all the human being. If such high level committee is appointed by my Lord Chief Justice atleast for dealing exclusive problem between police and the lawyers we hope that there could be peace be prevail between the police and the Advocates." 21. Committee need of the Hour: 21.1. If such high level committee is appointed by my Lord Chief Justice atleast for dealing exclusive problem between police and the lawyers we hope that there could be peace be prevail between the police and the Advocates." 21. Committee need of the Hour: 21.1. The lessons learnt from the agitations leading to the ordering of a Commission of Inquiry indicates certain things. One precious judicial time was wasted due to the lawyers agitations. The decision to go on court boycott was rather emotional than based on reason, because both the Commissions found in all the three incidents referred to them were that the incidents complained of was either exaggerated or that the lawyers for whom the Bar went on strike were themselves were on the wrong. The other lesson was that the stake was not responding to the issue of Court boycott with utmost seriousness and was procrastinating in finding a proper solution. In the ultimate analysis the issues arising out of the direct action of the Bar requires an urgent and appropriate intervention. The need of the hour is to evolve a suitable mechanism which can quickly find a solution to any unpleasant stand off between the Bar and Police in future. Ultimately this alone will prevent a situation leading to Catastrophy. Appointment of Commissions of Inquiry are not only time consuming but with enormous cost energies are wasted. Further in a probe by an independent authority the police is not the losers and they need not apprehend any partisan probe. In both Commissions the report was balanced and the Commissioners found that in a surcharged atmosphere the truth was the casualty. 21.2. We are surprised to note the lack of response by the State in this matter and that the issue cannot be left to be handled only by the Presiding Officers of the Courts. Hence it had become our endeavour to evolve a suitable mechanism which is organically alive and can find a quick solution to the issues on which attention is focussed. We also feel that unless all the stake holders have a role in such an apparatus, it may not procure desired result. Therefore, in our opinion that a State Level Committee should be a balanced outfit giving proper representation to all stake holders and who will also have the power to enforce the decisions arrived at by the Committee. 21.3. We also feel that unless all the stake holders have a role in such an apparatus, it may not procure desired result. Therefore, in our opinion that a State Level Committee should be a balanced outfit giving proper representation to all stake holders and who will also have the power to enforce the decisions arrived at by the Committee. 21.3. It is with this history and concern about the past events, this Court has come up with the suggestion to recommend to the State to reconstitute the Committee both at the State level and the District level. However, to our dismay, the State has not positively responded to our suggestion inspite of the fact that the problem which is plaguing this Court for the past three decades is yet to find a solution and several precious hours of judicial time has been wasted, which is not in public interest. We also feel that considering the number of complaints received from all over the State, it is not necessary to constitute Committees in all Districts. Going by the previous experience, the District level Committees were not effective and only solution is that the Committee should have certain high ranking officials including the members of the Judiciary as part of the Committee so that effective direction can be given at all levels. 22. Composition and Powers of the committee: 22.1. Therefore, we hereby propose to constitute the only one Committee at the State level with the following composition: 22.2. The Registrar General of the High Court of Madras will co-ordinate the meetings of the Committee and the Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu will assist him in convening the meetings and recording the minutes of the meeting. The Committee, on its being constituted, will receive the complaint or information relating to assault or ill-treatment of any Advocate (who are on the rolls of the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council) at the hands of the Police officials in the State, which will be referred to the Registrar General of the High Court by members of the respective Bar Association or by the State Bar Council or by the District Judges including the Principal Judge, City Civil Court. Upon receipt of the complaint, the matter will be placed before the Chair Person of the State Level co-ordination Committee and on his orders, the meeting of the Committee will be convened and appropriate direction will be given upon the said complaint. The Committee will adopt its own procedure in arriving at the conclusions and recommendations. 23. It goes without saying that the constitution of the Committee is the need of the hour and the Court cannot afford to lose its precious judicial time due to the frequent Court boycotts indulged by the Advocates and, therefore, we direct the State of Tamil Nadu (first respondent herein) to immediately issue the administrative G.O. constituting the Committee, in any event, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the constitution of the Committee with the highest dignitaries of the State, it is expected that the members of the Bar, respective Bar Associations including their federations and the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council will hereafter maintain utmost restraint in giving a call for any Court boycott and as agreed to by them, despite any provocation. They are expected to approach the State Level Co-ordination Committee formed with a view to resolve any accusation made against the Police regarding their misbehaviour towards the members of the Bar and abide by the decision of the Committee in this regard. 24. This writ petition shall stand disposed with the above observations. However, there will be no order as to costs.