The All India Bar Association (AIBA) condemned the recent outburst of a Madras High Court judge during virtual proceedings. In response, the AIBA urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to form a monitoring committee, led by a retired Supreme Court judge, to oversee the conduct of virtual court sessions. The association emphasized the need for accountability and decorum in digital hearings.
The All India Bar Association (AIBA), along with several bar associations across Tamil Nadu, has written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, condemning the outburst of Madras High Court Justice R Subramanian directed at advocate P Wilson.
AIBA also raised concerns over a breach of confidentiality, as a video clip of the incident widely circulated on social media. The association has requested the CJI to form a monitoring committee, led by a retired Supreme Court judge, to supervise virtual court proceedings.
The judge’s outburst occurred during a case hearing related to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court.
A bench consisting of Justices R Subramanian and L Victoria Gowri hearing the matter when senior advocate Wilson, representing TNPSC, cited an earlier order passed by Justice Victoria in the same case. This resulted in a heated exchange between Justice Subramanian and the senior lawyer.
In the 5-minute video clip circulating on social media and WhatsApp, the judge is heard stating,
“The learned senior counsel appearing for TNPSC makes an irresponsible submission and seeks the recusal of one of us because the concerned judge has admitted the writ petition and granted the interim order. This is preposterous… This, according to us, demeans the court and is highly disrespectful.”
The judge then directed the court registry to place the case before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
During the incident, senior counsel P Wilson is seen repeatedly apologizing and clarifying that he did not request the recusal of the judge.
However, Justice Subramanian continued, saying,
“Oh! Fantastic Mr. Wilson, fantastic! Do all these gimmicks in Parliament, not before us. We are not entertaining it.”
The judge further expressed disappointment, stating,
“I never expected you guys would stoop to such levels. I never expected this from you particularly. I am so sorry, Mr. Wilson. You don’t behave like an officer of the Court.”
To this, Wilson responded that it was his duty to bring the matter on record before the court.
Justice Subramanian continued reprimanding the advocate, saying,
“You guys think you can do anything. Try your tricks elsewhere, not before me.”
He added,
“You need not seek our pardon, sir. You are bigger than us. We are not hearing you… You have achieved your object.”
The judge accused the advocate of using “cheap tricks” in court.
Although Wilson apologized again if he had offended the court, the judge remarked,
“You have hurt us,”
And continued,
“Because you are appearing for TNPSC, you don’t have two horns. You are also an ordinary lawyer. Behave properly.” He cautioned, “Don’t ever try this with me again. This degradation is going to take you nowhere. Be careful. Don’t try these tricks here.”
Despite Wilson’s repeated apologies, the court ultimately decided to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
In its letter, the All India Bar Association (AIBA) criticized Justice R Subramanian for shouting and using inappropriate language towards advocate P Wilson during a court hearing.
The association noted that the bench, “in its apparent anger,” recorded that Wilson made remarks that demeaned the court. AIBA expressed concern that this “misrepresentation has the potential to have long-reaching implications for the judiciary, as it sets a dangerous precedent.”
AIBA further warned that the official record of this incident could “embolden similar behavior” in the future and may discourage other legal professionals from raising legitimate concerns in court.
The association emphasized,
“Advocates must feel free to carry out their professional responsibilities without fear of being unjustly accused of undermining the court’s authority.”
They highlighted that the court’s actions in this case are “particularly troubling” as they suggest a move toward stifling judicial criticism and reasonable discourse rather than fostering an open environment in the pursuit of justice.
Additionally, AIBA expressed serious concerns over the widespread circulation of the video clip of the incident. They pointed out that the Madras High Court’s video conferencing rules strictly prohibit the downloading, sharing, or circulation of court proceedings and questioned how the video was distributed.
The association stated,
“This breach of confidentiality is highly concerning.”
In its letter, AIBA presented four requests to the Chief Justice of India: establishing clear guidelines requiring judges to maintain respectful communication and professionalism in courtrooms, creating an accessible Redressal Committee to handle complaints of judicial misconduct, protecting the human rights of advocates, and setting up a monitoring mechanism, led by a retired Supreme Court judge, to review virtual court proceedings and ensure adherence to professional standards.
Several district bar associations, along with the Federation of Bar Associations of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, have also written to the Madras High Court Chief Justice, K Sriram, raising concerns over the judge’s conduct.