ORDER : S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. This Sub-Application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, seeking an order to modify para 8 of the order of this Court, dated 16.09.2015 made in Suo Motu Cont. P. No. 1592 of 2015. The Suo Motu contempt proceeding has been initiated against certain advocates, who are committing certain illegal acts against the Judiciary and the Democratic system of the State, as per the letter addressed by the Principal District Judge, Madurai and the report filed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai with supporting materials, relating to his Report. The contemners are the President and Secretary respectively of the Madurai Bar Association and they had passed a resolution, conducted procession and raised slogans against the Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Government, addressing common people not to obey the orders passed by this Court, in respect of wearing helmet, while riding two wheelers. In the Resolution, dated 02.07.2015, typed and signed by the contemners, in their letter pad, by Resolution No. 3, they directly abused the High Court Judge, who passed the order, Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Police Department and also raised allegations, by their resolution that the Government of Tamil Nadu, the concerned Judge and the Police Department have got unlawful gain by promoting the sale of helmet to the tune of Rs. 3000 crores. 2. The Resolution No. 7 of the said Association, pressed the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, all the Government officers of police officials and Judges to wear belt while travelling in car and further insisted that they should wear helmets and travel with their family in two wheelers for one month and then to cancel the requirement of wearing helmets after realizing the difficulties involved. 3. The Resolution No. 11 of the Association reads that they will continue their boycott of courts and agitate till the judicial order, directing to wear helmet mandatory is set aside and till all TASMAC shops are closed in Tamil Nadu. They further resolved that police officials should not enter the Court premises at Madurai till their proposal is achieved and they would continue their agitation of hunger strike, human chain on 06.07.2015 and 07.07.2015, apart from boycotting Courts. They further resolved that police officials should not enter the Court premises at Madurai till their proposal is achieved and they would continue their agitation of hunger strike, human chain on 06.07.2015 and 07.07.2015, apart from boycotting Courts. The aforesaid resolutions passed by the Madurai Bar Association is totally illegal and a threat to Democracy in the State, especially against the independent functioning of the Judiciary. Apart from that they used false, baseless and scandalous allegations against various Judges of the High Court, who are known for integrity and honesty. 4. It cannot be disputed that any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal, revision or SLP before the Supreme Court against the order. However, they cannot conduct procession or burn effigy of the Judge or issue anonymous notices containing false and scandalous allegations against Judges and other higher dignitaries. They cannot say that police should not enter the Court premises at Madurai. It shows the unruly and authoritarians attitude of certain unscrupulous persons against the proper functioning of the Judiciary. 5. The political issues such as prohibiting or closure of TASMAC shops could be raised by any political party in a Democratic society. Hence, an Advocates Association, which has its members of various political parties could not raise such an ultimatum, by way of passing Resolution for boycotting Courts. The aforesaid resolution passed by the Madurai Bar Association is totally against all professional and ethical norms. They cannot introduce their jungle rule against Democracy, by their illegal threat and ultimatum against the Judiciary and the Government. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai has sent a detailed reports containing photographs, which shows that the contemners and others had raised illegal slogans against various Judges and prevented public from entering into the Court premises of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, though they have no such right to prevent other Advocates and the General public. 6. It is brought to our notice that 90% of the Advocates, who have faith in the democratic system are not supporting the illegal activities of certain group of Advocates. 7. Learned Advocates, Mr. Dalit Tiger Ponnusamy, Mr. S.R. Rajagopalan and Mr. K. Arumugam, have come forward to place the materials and assist the Court against the illegal activities of the said persons, led by the contemners. 7. Learned Advocates, Mr. Dalit Tiger Ponnusamy, Mr. S.R. Rajagopalan and Mr. K. Arumugam, have come forward to place the materials and assist the Court against the illegal activities of the said persons, led by the contemners. As they were facing threat at the hands of mass of Advocates, supporting the illegal cause, we directed the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and The Director General of Police, Chennai, to provide proper security for the Advocates, interested in the Institution, by our order. 8. It is seen from the affidavit filed by Mr. Dalit Tiger Ponnusamy, that the order passed by this Court was not complied with by the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and The Director General of Police, Chennai, till dated. In the affidavit filed by him, para No. 3 reads as follows: "3. I humbly submit that one Sub-Inspector of Police, by name Mr. Ralwar not in uniform came to my residence on 25.09.2015 at 8.15 pm and questioned me about myself and family and my sons and daughter regarding their studies. I replied that my first son P. Ambedkar is undergoing M.Tech, 2nd year (Industrial Engineering), Dr. MGR Engineering College, Maduraivoyal, Chennai-95; my 2nd son, P. Nelson Mandela is undergoing M.E., First year (Mechatronics Engineering) in Madras Institute of Technology (MIT), Chennai-44; and my daughter, P. Nivedita, is undergoing B.A., in English Literature-cum-communication English, 3rd year at Ethiraj College for Women, Egmore, Chennai-8. When there is an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, which is the duty of the police to obey the order to give armed police protection to me. But till date, no any police protection given to me, even though the order was passed on 16.09.2015." 9. On the said facts and circumstances, it is seen that Mr. H.M. Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, Welfare, Chennai, has filed this Sub-Application against the Constitutional mandate and his affidavit reads thus: "4. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court without obtaining any threat assessment reports from the authorities concerned and without hearing this department has given direction to provide security to the said persons, which is against the principles of natural justice. This Hon'ble Court ought to have obtained the threat assessment reports or ought to have heard this department before passing such order. 5. This Hon'ble Court ought to have obtained the threat assessment reports or ought to have heard this department before passing such order. 5. It is submitted that this is a case of Suo-Motu Contempt proceedings initiated by this Hon'ble Court, the reason for allowing the impleading petition filed by the 3rd party, i.e., Tr. Dalit Tiger Ponnusamy and Tr. S.R. Rajagopalan is not proper. Moreover, as per the threat assessment reports, there has been no threat perception to them and also to Tr. K. Arumugam. 6. It is submitted that there are many factions/groups among the advocates. In such circumstances, providing armed escort and security to one group and not to others will further escalate the situation and is fraught with dangers. Such thing will lead to serious consequences and it will also create a bad precedent. There may be more such requests from other advocates for providing personal security and it will not be possible to provide security to all such people as our resources are primarily meant to look after law and order matters. Moreover, PSOs with weapons for private persons in High Court premises is not very comfortable state of affairs. Therefore, it is just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to modify/delete para 8 of the order, dated 16.09.2015." 10. The Police Officer has stated that before passing the order to provide security, this Court could have obtained any threat assessment report from the authorities. Without hearing the Department, directing to provide security to the advocates, according to him, would be against principles of natural justice. The police officer has further stated that this Court ought to have obtained Threat Assessment Report or heard the Department before passing the order. He has further averred that allowing the impleading petition filed by Mr. Dalit Tiger Ponnusamy and directing Armed Escort and security to him along with two Advocates is not proper. We are of the view that to make such an averments, the police officer has no locus standi. The order passed by this Court, cannot be reviewed by the Inspector General of Police. However, without understanding the law, especially the Constitutional mandate, he has stated further that providing security to the aforesaid Advocates would escalate the situation and led to serious consequence. The averments made by the police officers is nothing but a clear contempt of Court. 11. The order passed by this Court, cannot be reviewed by the Inspector General of Police. However, without understanding the law, especially the Constitutional mandate, he has stated further that providing security to the aforesaid Advocates would escalate the situation and led to serious consequence. The averments made by the police officers is nothing but a clear contempt of Court. 11. We make it clear that we are not finding fault against the Government, since the improper averments, are nothing but contempt committed only by Mr. H.M. Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, without realising his responsibility and not by the Government. 12. Considering the safety of any person, even if he were an accused facing charges of murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court can direct the police authority to provide proper safety, which cannot be reviewed by any police officer, without knowing the rudimentary principles of Rule of law, it has been averred by the police officer, dis-respecting the Constitutional mandate of the Court. 13. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Madurai city, has sent his report with supporting materials that the contemners and other named Advocates in a gathering conducted procession against the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court and also raised allegations, which is highly defamatory, where they have asked Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Kirubakaran, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Police Commissioner should wear helmet first. 14. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, has sent a detailed report in a very responsible manner, with materials about the illegal activities of certain unscrupulous persons, in the name of Advocates, conducting processions, dharna, raising false and frivolous allegations against Judges, against the Government in the name of some Advocates Association. Without knowing the said reality, Mr. H.M. Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, has made reckless averments in the accompanying affidavit. It is also strange to us as to how Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor approved the averments made by the police officer against law. 15. It is shocking to our Judicial conscious while going through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Sub-Application by Mr. H.M. Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, a higher level police officer. We are of the considered view that the said averments are totally against the Constitutional mandate, which would attract contempt of court proceeding. 16. 15. It is shocking to our Judicial conscious while going through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Sub-Application by Mr. H.M. Jayaram, Inspector General of Police, a higher level police officer. We are of the considered view that the said averments are totally against the Constitutional mandate, which would attract contempt of court proceeding. 16. We do not think that the concerned officer could have got prior instruction from the Government, to make averments in the accompanying affidavit against law, since the contemners have raised the allegation against the Judiciary and the Government against law. Hence, we have no say against the Government in this regard, except improper averments made by the police officer. 17. On the facts and circumstances, we direct the Registry to issue notice to Mr. H.M. Jayaram, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Welfare, Mylapore, Chennai, as to why appropriate action should not be taken for disobeying the order and acting against the Constitutional mandate. Further, we direct the Registrar-General, to furnish a copy of this order and a copy of the affidavit filed by the concerned Inspector General of Police to the Government, through Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu, for taking appropriate action. II. Suo Motu Cont. P. No. 1592 of 2015 18. The Contempt Petition in Suo Motu Cont. P. No. 1592 of 2015 was ordered to be posted before this Bench, as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, to decide the same, according to law. 19. The file pertaining to the contempt petition forwarded to this Bench contains a letter of the Principal District Judge, Madurai in D. No. 10679, dated 03.07.2015, addressed to the Registrar-General of the High Court along with a copy of the Resolutions, dated 02.07.2015, passed by the Madurai Bar Association, Madurai in their letter pad, signed by Mr. P. Dharmaraj and Mr. A.K. Ramasamy, the contemners herein, stating them as President and Secretary respectively of the Madurai Bar Association. The Resolutions signed by them in their letter pad on 02.07.2015 along with other resolutions would read as follows: "(1) .... P. Dharmaraj and Mr. A.K. Ramasamy, the contemners herein, stating them as President and Secretary respectively of the Madurai Bar Association. The Resolutions signed by them in their letter pad on 02.07.2015 along with other resolutions would read as follows: "(1) .... (2) We demanded the Tamil Nadu Government and the High Court Judge Kirubarakan to shoulder the responsibility for the death of a woman by name Kanchana on 01.07.2015 because of the accident she met with due to wearing helmet while going in a two wheeler, and to pay compensation of Rs. 1 crore to her. (3) We condemn the action of unlawful gain by the Tamil Nadu Government, High Court Judge Kirubakaran and Tamil Nadu Police Department by promoting the helmet sale to the tune of Rs. 3000 crores and arranged for unlawful huge gain to the sellers. (4) .... (5) We press the High Court Judge Kirubakaran to wear belt while travelling in car. (6) .... (7) We press the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, all Government officials, all police officials and judges to wear belt while travelling in car. Likewise, they should wear helmets and travel with their family in two wheelers for one month and then to cancel the requirement of wearing helmets after realizing the difficulties involved. (8) .... (9) .... (10) ...." 20. It is seen that the Resolution No. 11 reads that there would be indefinite boycott of Courts by the Advocates of the Madurai Bar Association till the Judicial order making mandatory to wear helmet by all the two wheeler riders is recalled or set aside. The Resolution further reads that police officials should not enter into the District Court premises till their boycott is over and on 03.07.2015, there would be dharna and human chain agitation in front of the Court premises and a Review meeting would be held on 08.07.2015 at 2 pm by the Madurai Bar Association at Madurai. It is not in dispute that the said resolutions were signed by the contemners in their letter pad, stating them respectively as President and Secretary of the Association. 21. The report of Mr. It is not in dispute that the said resolutions were signed by the contemners in their letter pad, stating them respectively as President and Secretary of the Association. 21. The report of Mr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, dated 02.07.2015, reveals that the contemners 1 & 2 and few named Advocates and hundreds of other advocates had gathered at the District Court premises, Madurai, conducted procession to the premises of the Madurai Bench against the Judge of this Court, who passed the said order. On the first day of their procession, they stopped their bike rally without wearing helmet at 5 locations in Madurai City and shouted slogans against the Hon'ble Judges and other high level dignitaries and officials and on the second day, while taking out similar bike rally without wearing helmet, they blocked major road junctions at Goripalayam in Madurai city and shouted slogans against Hon'ble Judges and other officials. Then they proceeded to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court from the District Court premises, where they continued their protest at the High Court entry gates. Some of the allegations raised by the said Advocates, stated in Tamil are highly defamatory against the Judges and others, as stated in the report. They demanded that Mr. Justice N. Kirubakaran, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Police Commissioner and others should wear helmet first. Copy of various photos sent with the report by the Police Commissioner, Madurai city, would show that the procession was started from Madurai District Court premises upto the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by road, crossing various road junctions, as stated by the Police Commissioner in two wheelers, without wearing helmet. It is seen from the report and supporting materials that highly derogatory statements were made against Judges, Chief Minister, Police Commissioner and other police officers by the said Advocates and others against law. The procession was made even without getting permission from the police. 22. On going through the material papers and report of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, we are of the view that such type of illegal activities have not been committed so far by advocates, any where in the country, in the name of an Advocates Association. Against a Judicial order, directing two wheeler riders to wear helmet, the advocates indulged in the said illegal activities. Against a Judicial order, directing two wheeler riders to wear helmet, the advocates indulged in the said illegal activities. Hence, the Hon'ble Chief Justice ordered to proceed against the unbecoming activities of certain group of Advocates acting against their professional ethics. 23. This Bench ordered issuance of contempt notice against contemners, M/s. P. Dharmaraj and A.K. Ramasamy, as they are the signatories to the illegal resolution passed in the name of Madurai Bar Association, Madurai, based on the materials produced by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city, to the Registrar General of this Court. 24. The Court records produced by the Registry of this Court would show that Madurai Courts were not allowed to function by advocates, even for 50% of the working days, on account of various boycotts, being announced illegally by the contemners and others, despite the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that boycott of courts by advocates as illegal and also a professional misconduct in the noble profession. 25. After service of contempt notice, on 24.08.2015, when the matter was posted as Item No. 179 in the list, before the Bench, we could see large unusual gathering of Advocates in the Court Hall and further, before calling the cases, Mr. A.K. Ramasamy, the second contemner, on his own accord, started speaking, as if it was a public platform, calling the names of Judges in Tamil, sitting in the Bench, without maintaining the basic dignity and decorum of the Court. Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj and Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, Advocates informed the Court that they were appearing for the first and second contemners respectively, however, they had not filed any vakalath for the contemners. Though, the improper behaviour of the second contemner could be construed nothing but another contempt being committed by him, this Court took a lenient view, whereby the said contemner was advised properly to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court and their counsel were also asked to file vakalath to have locus standi, to argue for the contemners. Subsequently, at the request of Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, one of the counsel for the contemners, the matter was passed over, to have it as first matter after lunch by 2.15 p.m., on the said date. 26. When the matter was taken up at 2.15 p.m. before this Bench, both the contemners were found in their Advocate robe, sitting at the horseshoe table. N.G.R. Prasad, one of the counsel for the contemners, the matter was passed over, to have it as first matter after lunch by 2.15 p.m., on the said date. 26. When the matter was taken up at 2.15 p.m. before this Bench, both the contemners were found in their Advocate robe, sitting at the horseshoe table. Being contemners, they were not entitled to wear the band and robe, that could be available to any Advocate. After the same was pointed out, they removed their band and robe voluntarily. In fact, when Mr. A.K. Ramasamy, second contemner, was trying to remove his coat, this Court informed him that wearing coat was his option, which need not be removed. 27. At the request of the counsel for the contemners, the matter was adjourned to 16.09.2015 and the court also made it clear that longer adjournment is not possible, as contempt proceeding is summary in nature. However, certain newspapers and electronic media, at the instance of somebody, have wrongly published news, as if the contemners were dis-respected by the Court, hence, the Madurai Bar Association, Madurai, decided to bring number of advocates in seven buses from Madurai to the Principal Bench of the High Court at Chennai, though their behaviour in the Court hall on 24.08.2015 would be unbecoming of any lawyer and could not be accepted by any reasonable prudent man or law abiding person. 28. In the letter, dated 29.07.2015, addressed by Mr. K.H. Elavazhagan, Principal District Judge, Madurai to the Registrar General of this Court, it is submitted that on 29.07.2015, around 5.00 pm, Madurai Bar Association Secretary, Mr. A.K. Ramasamy along with him another Advocate by name, Mr. Ashok and three other advocates had come to his chamber and represented that they were sending reply to the Notice of the High Court in ROC. No. 3596/2015/F2/RG, dated 18.07.2015 and they also shouted against the Principal District Judge, saying that the District Judge would not be permitted to go out of his chamber, until he apologize before the Madurai Bar Association. In spite of the request of the District Judge, they did not leave the chamber of the Judge, but were continuously shouting and interfered with the official duty of the District Judge, at his chamber and the same was also videographed by the said Judge, by using his cellphone. 29. In spite of the request of the District Judge, they did not leave the chamber of the Judge, but were continuously shouting and interfered with the official duty of the District Judge, at his chamber and the same was also videographed by the said Judge, by using his cellphone. 29. As per the report of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, dated 11.09.2015, it was brought to light that after appearing before this Court on 24.08.2015, the contemners again led a procession on 10.09.2015 from Madurai District Court premises to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai, raising slogans against Judges. The procession was also made without prior permission from police and the participants were 649 advocates including 20 women advocates of Madurai Bar High Court Association (MBHA) and advocates from Trichy, Thanjavur, Karur and Pudukottai Districts. The report of the Commissioner further reads as follows: "Agitating lawyers numbering around 650 took out unauthorized procession with a motorcade of 367 two wheelers, 60 cars, 3 buses and 3 TATA ACE vehicles with loudspeakers (one in front of the procession and one at the tail) starting at 1135 hours from the campus of Madurai District Court and reached in front of Gandhi statute of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, via Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Periyar statue outposts, Alagarkoil Road, Tamukkam junction, Goripalayam, Panagal Road, Aavin junction, K.K. Nagar Arch, Wakf Board College, Mattuthavani, Uthankudi. They demonstrated in front of the Gandhi statue from 1250 to 1255 hrs, condemning the Hon'ble Judges. After parking all the above vehicles inside the High Court campus, the advocates assembled under the shamiyana erected by them along with chairs, loudspeakers and mike outside the campus of the High Court. They started addressing the gathering at about 13.00 hrs. Bar Association Secretary of the Madurai District Court, Thiru. A.K. Ramasamy, addressed first. He welcomed all the participants and spoke in a manner of defaming Hon'ble Judges Tvl. C.T. Selvam, Raja, Saravanakumar, Madurai District Sessions Judge, Tr. Ilavalagan and Rameshwaram J.M, Thiru. Saravanan. After his speech, around 19 advocates spoke about corruption in judiciary and misconduct. They also blamed the judges for their anti-advocate attitude taking the 'suo motu contempt petition' as a tool against advocates, who give complaints of corruption. They all praised the District Court bar Secretary A.K. Ramasamy. They concluded the meeting at 16:15 hrs. Saravanan. After his speech, around 19 advocates spoke about corruption in judiciary and misconduct. They also blamed the judges for their anti-advocate attitude taking the 'suo motu contempt petition' as a tool against advocates, who give complaints of corruption. They all praised the District Court bar Secretary A.K. Ramasamy. They concluded the meeting at 16:15 hrs. They distributed pamphlets during the procession in the name of "Rally for Eradication of Judicial Corruption" with a title "Judges are not kings to rule and advocates are not docile slaves" and gave a press release (copy enclosed)." 30. The said press release reads that the same was issued in the name of Advocate Bar Associations, Tamil Nadu, though no such registered Association is in existence. In the aforesaid press note, it is stated that more than 1000 advocates across Tamil Nadu have jointly conducted the procession and demonstration was made on 10.09.2015 against the corruption in the Indian Judiciary, wherein they raised allegations against various Judges of High Court and the Supreme Court past and present. In support of the report, photographs and other materials have also been sent by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai. 31. It is also relevant to note that on 14.09.2015, one Mr. Bhagat Singh, an Advocate, his wife with two children, Mr. Murugan, junior to Mr. A.K. Ramasamy, the second contemner along with few others, including students had occupied the Chief Justice's Court Hall before the commencement of the Judicial work and they were found tying their mouth with black ribbon and snowed sign-boards that Tamil should be made as official language in the High Court, otherwise, they would not move out of the Court hall. There was no need for suddenly making the demand, to make Tamil as court language at the Court Hall of the Chief Justice. In fact, we permit to argue in Tamil, even in the High Court, however, out of more than 85,000 Advocates practicing in the State, except one or two advocates, no other advocate is preferred to argue in Tamil before the High Court, even the agitating advocates for the cause of Tamil could not speak Tamil correctly in the High Court. However, they are making it an issue, so as to side-track the issue of the contempt proceeding, that was posted before this Bench on 16.09.2015. 32. Though Mr. However, they are making it an issue, so as to side-track the issue of the contempt proceeding, that was posted before this Bench on 16.09.2015. 32. Though Mr. Bhagat Singh and others were informed that no Judge, including the Chief Justice is against making Tamil as court language and told them not to obstruct the court proceeding, they did not go out of the Chief Justice Court Hall. In spite of the direction given to send the persons making protest, out from the Court Hall of the Chief Justice, the police personnel attending duty had failed to take action to send out the illegal protesters from the Court Hall, till in the evening. The factum of the illegal act staged at the Chief Justice Court Hall is known to all the Judges and Advocates, practising in the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court. 33. It is also relevant to point out that whenever Advocates boycott of courts is announced by any Advocates Association, they used to demand to declare Tamil as the language of the High Court, apart from raising Mullai Periyar issue etc., with the view to evoke sympathy from the General public of Tamil Nadu. On certain occasions, after announcing boycott of courts, the agitating advocates used to take tea and snacks at the horseshoe table, while Court proceedings were going on and also used mike and amplifier inside the Court hall for raising slogans, at times they attacked the other advocates attending court and also the Court officials and used filthy language against women court staff. It is disheartening to state that once a Chamber of a Hon'ble Judge, was used by some unscrupulous elements as urinal, while the Judge was sitting on the Dias. They used to issue pamphlets, hand bills, raising scandalous wild allegations against Judges in the name of some unregistered Association, without taking any responsibility for raising the allegations. However, the videographs and photos taken have been produced by Mr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, a responsible police officer, which would clearly show that illegal activities are being done frequently, so as to obstruct the Court proceedings and for boycotting courts. However, the videographs and photos taken have been produced by Mr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, a responsible police officer, which would clearly show that illegal activities are being done frequently, so as to obstruct the Court proceedings and for boycotting courts. In fact, many Advocates, who are interested in the noble profession are against boycotting of Courts and other illegal activities, they informed that only for the purpose of conducting 'katta panchayat' and settle cases out of Court against law, some group of advocates are resorting to the activities of threatening Judges, so as to protract the Court proceedings, in the name of false corruption charges and other baseless allegations, which are totally unsustainable. 34. Having considered the illegal activities, the Bar Council of India, New Delhi has taken appropriate action, whereby 14 Advocates were removed from the Bar, including the contemners herein. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has also advised the lawyers community by a statement to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court and the Judiciary. We were informed that on 16.09.2015, persons had been brought from Madurai to disturb illegally the contempt proceeding before this Bench, by entering into the Court hall. However, the same was prevented by taking appropriate precautionary measures by this Court. The Bench was informed that number of criminal cases are pending against the second contemner, Mr. A.K. Ramasamy. 35. Hence, this Court, directed the Registrar 0udicial), to file a report, regarding the pendency of criminal cases against the second contemner, Mr. A.K. Ramasamy and as per the report submitted by the Registrar 0udicial), it is brought to our notice that 20 criminal cases are pending against the second contemner, Mr. A.K. Ramasamy before various courts and in one case, FIR was closed. 36. We are informed by certain Advocates that many persons, who were brought from Madurai on 16.09.2015 in white pants and white shirts were not really Advocates and each one of them were paid certain amount, apart from incurring their travelling expenses, providing food according to their choice with other comforts. It is strange to us as to how and from what source, a huge money was collected for spending the same towards an illegal object of conducting procession at Madurai and also for obstructing the contempt proceeding at the Principal Bench, Chennai, by bringing persons from Madurai in various buses. It is strange to us as to how and from what source, a huge money was collected for spending the same towards an illegal object of conducting procession at Madurai and also for obstructing the contempt proceeding at the Principal Bench, Chennai, by bringing persons from Madurai in various buses. On the said facts and circumstances, it is clear that taking action only against the contemners 1 and 2 would not solve the problem. Some of the police officials attending duty at the court premises are only silent spectators and not ready to give any safeguard, even if there is any direction given by the Judges of this Court. In spite of the direction given, the protesters at the Chief Justice Court Hall were not sent out by police, by using force on 14.09.2015 till in the evening. Hence, the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed an order, directing to provide Central Police Force, as the court premises is declared as high level security zone. Providing Central Security Force is the need of the Hour, which should not be a prestige issue of any Government, either State or Centre and similarly, it is unfair to make the same as a political issue. 37. Having considered the fact that Mr. Dalit Tiger Ponnusamy, a practicing Advocate had furnished certain details to this Court, in the form of an affidavit, in spite of the threat being faced by them by the boycotting Advocates, we find it reasonable to permit him to assist the Court through his counsel, M/s. S.R. Rajagopalan and K. Arumugam. We make it clear that the said advocate was not impleaded neither a necessary nor proper party, but only permitted to assist the Court. 38. Despite the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that Advocates boycotting of Courts is professional misconduct and also illegal, in the names of Madurai Bar Association and Advocates Bar Associations, Tamil Nadu, boycotts are being announced and processions were held, by group of advocates, making false baseless and defamatory allegations against Judges and the Judiciary, for wrongful gain, whereby attempting to spoil the reputation and dignity of the Judiciary with an ultimate illegal object of making the Madurai Bench of this Court and other Courts in Madurai, amenable to their pressure, though the same could not be legally possible. It is also brought to light that subsequent to the contempt proceeding initiated by this Court, an official car in which, while Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan was proceeding on a over-bridge at Madurai was attacked by throwing stone by some unscrupulous elements and the said occurrence is also viewed that it is also related to this contempt proceeding, in order to create threat or fear psychosis. In the said incident, the front glass of the official car of the Judge was damaged, fortunately, there was no untoward incident. 39. It is also the usual practice of the Bar Association at Madurai, passing resolutions while new set of judges are being sent periodically by rotation, as per the proceedings of the Chief Justice, stating as to who should sit in the criminal bench or civil bench and which Judge should not be posted at Madurai Bench, though the same is exclusively the prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Almost in all boycotts being announced, they used to raise the issue of Tamil language as High Court language, with a view to create a scene to the General public of Tamil Nadu, as if they are the people fighting to make Tamil as Court language in the High Court, though they have no such real interest. They also use to take mullai periyar issue and also the closure of TASMAC shop in Tamil Nadu in their resolutions, despite the fact that the said issues are political and the same has got no relevancy for boycotting courts. 40. We are against corruption, as the same is spoiling the country and the ultimate victims of corruption are the poor and the helpless persons. As rightly said by the Father of our Nation, the great Mahatma Gandhiji, by adopting illegal methods, righteousness cannot be achieved. In the instant case also, by way of illegal activities of boycotting courts, and making procession, raising scandalous allegations against Judges of this Court and the Apex Court, they cannot achieve righteousness. In short, corrupt persons cannot eradicate corruption merely by raising their voice against corruption and other social issues. Similarly, persons illegally acting against the functioning of Judiciary for their personal gain cannot be for the right cause of eradicating corruption. In short, corrupt persons cannot eradicate corruption merely by raising their voice against corruption and other social issues. Similarly, persons illegally acting against the functioning of Judiciary for their personal gain cannot be for the right cause of eradicating corruption. The resolutions passed by certain Advocates would clearly show that their intention is to make the judiciary at Madurai at their control and they want to be the deciding authority, even for permitting police personnel inside the Court campus, such resolution is nothing but attempting to create lawlessness and jungle rule in the State and as such, the same is highly condemnable. 41. Earlier few newspapers had published the news with, title, as if the problem is between lawyers and judges, which is totally erroneous and a misleading statement to the public. Similarly, the news published that Advocates of pro-Judges were given police protection is also incorrect and misleading. Without realising the fact that the Press and Electronic Media are the Fourth pillar of the Democracy, improper and incorrect news were given. However, it seems that they have understood the problem now that the boycott and the said other activities are against the Judiciary and the Democracy in the State. 42. It is unfortunate that certain popular persons and political leaders, without knowing the reality have raised allegations against the functioning of the Judiciary. In fact, most of the Judges and the Bar Council are very much interested to safeguard the Institution and eradicate corruption. 43. The Resolutions passed by the Madurai Bar Association, Madurai, dated 02.07.2015 signed by the contemners would give a clear picture about the unruly attitude of the Advocates, who passed the same in the name of the said Association. As per the resolution, they had asked public, not to obey the order of the High Court, by wearing helmet and they have made propaganda that wearing helmet would cause various ailments to the persons. If a person is aggrieved by an order of any Court, it is open to him to challenge the order in the manner known to law. However, announcing boycott of courts, conducting procession, propagating defamatory statements against Judges cannot be accepted in a civilized society. If a person is aggrieved by an order of any Court, it is open to him to challenge the order in the manner known to law. However, announcing boycott of courts, conducting procession, propagating defamatory statements against Judges cannot be accepted in a civilized society. The Resolution No. 2 passed by the contemners and others says that on 01.07.2015, one two wheeler rider by-name Kanchana had met with an accident and died, though she was wearing helmet, hence, the Government of Tamil Nadu and Mr. Justice N. Kirubakaran, should pay a sum of Rupees one crore to the deceased, who died in the motor accident and the resolution further states that there was huge commission obtained for the sale of helmet to the tune of Rs. 3000 crores by the concerned Judge, who passed the order, Government of Tamil Nadu and the Police Department. Further, as per the resolution, they have directed all the Judges, Chief Minister and the officials of the State Government to wear seat belt while travelling in car and they should compulsorily travel in two wheeler for one month, with their family. The Resolution No. 11 reads that the boycott announced by them could be indefinite to all the Courts till the judicial order is recalled or set aside and further, they direct that police officials should not enter into the Court premises till the order relating to wear helmet is withdrawn or set aside. Earlier also, similar resolution was passed and sent to the High Court to withdraw police personnels provided as security at the residence of the Hon'ble Judges at Madurai. The aforesaid resolution would show the mentality of the said advocates treating the judiciary, as if it is their sub-organ, which is highly condemnable and further false-hood is being propagated, by raising scandalous allegations against judges. 44. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1344, wherein it is held that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to distribute business of the High Court, both judicial and administrative matters. The Chief Justice alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted; which Judge is to sit alone or otherwise and which cases required to be heard or which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do. 45. Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Chaubey, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, referring various earlier cases, that the Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the U.P. States Reorganisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. The Chief Justice enjoys a special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full Bench and he has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by which Bench. 46. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court, in a Landmark decision rendered in Pramatha Nath v. Saroj Ranjan, reported in AIR 1962 SC 876 , has held that it is the inherent power of Chief Justice to refer matter to a larger bench and such power exists where matter is of importance. As per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court has power to constitute a larger Bench on the special circumstances. And in the exercise thereof, the Chief Justice is empower to constitute a larger Bench. Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to such a case because it is not a case where the Judges composing the Court are equally divided in opinion. Rather, it is a case where the Judges composing the Division Bench consider that the case is one of such importance that it should be heard by a larger Bench, whereby an earlier decision was affirmed. 47. Considering the special circumstances and the importance of a case to be heard by a larger Bench, a Five Judge Constitutional Bench, headed by the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, was constituted in the matter, Court on its own motion v. K.K. Jha Kamal and Anr., reported in (2007) 3 BLJF 2545 (Jhar). 48. 47. Considering the special circumstances and the importance of a case to be heard by a larger Bench, a Five Judge Constitutional Bench, headed by the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, was constituted in the matter, Court on its own motion v. K.K. Jha Kamal and Anr., reported in (2007) 3 BLJF 2545 (Jhar). 48. In the instant case, on the earlier hearing on 16.09.2015, the first contemner was called absent and for him petition was filed by his counsel seeking to dispense with his presence for the said hearing and in the subsequent hearing on 30.09.2015, the counsel for the second contemner filed a similar petition for the second contemner, by producing a Doctor Certificate and accordingly, the presence of the second contemner was dispensed with for the said hearing. The counsel for the contemners asked time for filing counter. It being contempt proceeding, summary in nature, by fixing any short date, subject to the convenience of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, both the larger issue and the contempt proceeding against the individuals could be decided at an early date. Leaving the larger issue, deciding only the suo motu contempt petition, according to me, would not meet the ends of justice properly, since it is the appropriate time to give an end for advocates boycotting of courts and other illegal activities being committed by them. 49. It is an undisputed fact that various contempt proceedings have been initiated against lawyers, who committed contempt of court before several courts, across the country. However, the instant case is different from that of the other cases, since as per the report of the Police Commissioner, Madurai, 650 advocates were making boycott of courts and conducting procession against a Judicial order and also continued the same on several occasions, by raising defamatory allegations against Judges, hence, the contempt being committed by several advocates in an organised manner is totally illegal against the Judiciary. The police officials had unreasonable hesitation and they failed to prevent the same on several occasions, even at the court premises, while discharging their duty, in spite of the direction being given by -the High Court and District level Courts. The police officials had unreasonable hesitation and they failed to prevent the same on several occasions, even at the court premises, while discharging their duty, in spite of the direction being given by -the High Court and District level Courts. "(a) As per the report of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, after the appearance of the contemners on 24.08.2015 before this Court, on 10.09.2015, another procession was led by the contemners and other advocates with a total strength of nearly 650 advocates, including 20 women advocates. (b) On 16.09.2015, the second contemner could give only an evasive reply, while the Bench put questions to him to reply, whether the contemners led or participated in the procession on 10.09.2015 and also to reply about pendency of number of criminal cases against the second contemner before various courts and whether he was adjudged as insolvent, as per records produced and whether he had intimated the fact of declaring him as insolvent to the Bar Council. (c) On 30.09.2015, to conduct the contempt proceedings properly without any untoward incidents, entry was restricted, accordingly, contemners, their counsel, assisted by another Advocate each, apart from the advocates, who were permitted to assist the court, court officials and police officials deployed for security arrangements were alone permitted inside the Court Hall, however, it was ordered to record the entire proceedings by video-camera, as there was a demand that more number of advocates, members of the press and public should be permitted inside the Court hall and as the court hall could not accommodate all the other advocates, press people and the public, in order to have transparency of the court proceeding, it was ordered to keep live screen, outside the court hall for viewing the court proceedings directly by all. (d) On 30.09.2015, when the first contemner was asked about his signing in the resolution, dated 02.07.2015, he admitted that he and the second contemner had signed the resolution passed by the Madurai Bar Association, Madurai, as per a copy of which available in the file, however, the defence raised by the first contemner was that he had signed in the resolution, only based on the view of the others. The legality of the defence raised by him is yet to be decided. The legality of the defence raised by him is yet to be decided. On the said circumstances, tacking action against M/s. P. Dharmaraj and A.K. Ramasamy, contemners herein alone would not be sufficient to solve the problem and meet the ends of justice, as it would be a temporary remedy.' To prevent the persisting illegal activities of boycotting of courts and conducting procession by advocates at Madurai, which is going on for number of years, since constitution of Madurai Bench, appropriate action should be taken by issuing guidelines, which relates to the entire administration of the High Court, security arrangements to be made by any Central agency and also de-recognition of Advocates Association, on the ground of illegal activities and direct them to vacate the premises allotted to them." 50. A suggestion was also placed by persons interested in the Institution to consider concurrent filing of cases at the Principal Bench or closure of the Madurai Bench, following the procedure known to law for a certain period. We make it clear that we are not in favour of closure of Madurai Bench, at any point of time, as the same would be detrimental to the interest of the people of southern districts in the State of Tamil Nadu, since the Madurai Bench was constituted only for the convenience of the people. In case of necessity, the need of concurrent filing could be decided only by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, in the manner known to law. Proper guidelines need to be given, so as to prevent the illegal activity of advocates boycotting courts and making procession inside the Court premises as well as in other places and which could be effectively be dealt with, only by a decision of a Larger Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, since the administrative power of the High Court is vested with the Chief Justice, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Chaubey, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 320, State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1344 and in many other cases. Various vital aspects, such as providing proper security arrangement by any Central Security Force or otherwise, has to be decided by the High Court, headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, both in the Principal Bench, Chennai and also at Madurai Bench. Various vital aspects, such as providing proper security arrangement by any Central Security Force or otherwise, has to be decided by the High Court, headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, both in the Principal Bench, Chennai and also at Madurai Bench. In this regard, the decision of the Chief Justice is paramount and to give a full stop to the illegal boycotting of courts and conducting procession, sponsored by certain group of lawyers. Resorting to boycott of courts by certain advocates creates apprehension in the minds of majority of other advocates attending courts, though they were not interested in joining the boycott, as the same is against professional ethics. 51. I am of the view that (1) leaving the larger issues and deciding only the contempt petition relating to 2 contemners would not meet the ends of justice. (2) The contempt proceeding against the individuals could also be decided by a larger Bench with the larger issues involved in the matter, as its decision would be a proper ratio decidendi to prevent future similar occurrence, if any against the Judiciary. (3) The matter is also relating to de-recognition of certain Advocates Associations, in case of any gross violation or committing of any illegal activities and in such circumstances, directing to vacate the court premises allotted to the association, which is being led by persons involved in inducing boycott of Courts or other unbecoming activities would be easier. (4) Proper guidelines to be issued, restraining the persons using the premises for any illegal activities, such as planning for boycott of Courts or conducting procession against the judiciary, despite the verdict of the Supreme Court. It is also an important need to issue direction to close the mofussil Advocates Associations, after 6 pm or 7 pm on working days, if the same are located in the Court campus, since there are allegations that the Association premises are abused for various other purposes. 52. It is made clear that there is no difference of opinion for the Bench, on the point that the Bench is empowered with adequate authority to deal with the contempt proceeding and we have no fear, favour or hesitation in dealing with the contempt proceeding against the contemners, in accordance with law. There is no need to refer the same to any third Judge, as there is no final order passed with any difference of opinion. There is no need to refer the same to any third Judge, as there is no final order passed with any difference of opinion. On the facts and circumstances, in view of the larger issues involved in this matter, to be decided and to give a full stop to the advocates boycotting of courts and conducting illegal processions, etc, either at Madurai Bench or at the Principal Bench, Chennai or any other place within the Jurisdiction of this Court, I am (S. Tamilvanan, J) of the considered view that the matter has to be decided by a Larger Bench, preferably, a Constitutional Bench, headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, on account of various vital factors involved, in the light of the Full Bench decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1962 SC 876 , on the special circumstances and the vital importance of the larger issues to be decided. Hence, the Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, for passing appropriate orders, to constitute a larger Bench to decide the larger issues, and in such circumstances, the contempt proceeding can also be decided by the Larger Bench. The report of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai with the video-coverage and photos relating to the Madurai and the video coverage taken on 16.09.2015 nearby this Court (Hall No. 4), shall be sent to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chennai, for taking appropriate action, based on the gravity of the illegal activities of raising slogans by some advocates, against the Judges and the Judiciary, as appropriate action is being taken by the Bar Council. C.T. Selvam, J. "While sharing the concern of my learned Brother on several issues raised by him, I am unable to subscribe to the procedure required by him, viz., that the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench. I am of the view that the several issues raised, independently may be dealt with and that this contempt proceeding be taken to a logical end and in entering upon a decision therein, the same be rendered without fear or favour, without rancour or ill-will."