Don’t use the term ‘North Madras youth’ negatively, say Madras HC judges

Justice S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam take exception to an advocate repeatedly using the terms ‘north Madras youth’ and ‘North Madras lawyers’

The Madras High Court on Thursday (October 3, 2024) disapproved of the practice of branding ‘north Madras youth’ as being violent or different from the residents of other parts of Chennai. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam asked a lawyer not to use the term ‘north Madras youth’ in this context.

When the judges commenced the sitting for the day, advocate S. Tamilarasan made a mention of the withdrawal of police security provided to senior counsel S.R. Singaravelan and his family when he had administered the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTNP) before 2019.

The advocate said the ‘north Madras youth’ had a craze for wearing black coats and robes and affixing lawyers’ stickers on their vehicles, and that they tried to obtain law degrees from dubious institutions in neighbouring States to attempt to enrol with the BCTNP.

Mr. Singaravelan, during his stint as a special committee member of the BCTNP, had rejected the applications of more than 1,000 ‘north Madras youth’ and had faced an alleged threat to his life, the advocate said, adding that he and his family were given police security as a result.

Stating that this security was withdrawn recently, he said Bahujan Samaj Party’s Tamil Nadu unit president K. Armstrong was murdered by an armed gang in July this year and that a special investigation team constituted for the probe had investigated nearly 200 ‘north Madras lawyers’ in connection with the case.

Perplexed by the connection drawn between the political leader’s murder and the police security sought for the senior counsel, Justice Subramaniam told the advocate: “We don’t see any connection between the murder and the senior counsel. Why are you unnecessarily dragging him into the murder case?”

The senior judge in the Bench also stated that Mr. Singaravelan had performed the duty expected of him as a member of the special committee which administered the BCTNP before the conduct of elections to the council, and that would not entail granting lifelong police protection at public cost.

“Advocates do not have a retirement age. Lawyers aged 85 and 86 years are also appearing before us. One cannot expect police security to be given life long at public expense. If you want, you can always have private security guards,“ the judge told the lawyer.

He went on to state: “There is a committee in the police department for the periodical review of threat perception and to take a call on either continuing or withdrawing the security provided to individuals. If the committee’s decision is challenged on the judicial side, then we can examine the matter, not otherwise.”

Taking a serious objection to the advocate repeatedly using the terms ‘north Madras youth’ and ‘north Madras lawyers’, the judge asked him not to do so. “Be it north, south, east or west, all are residents of the same Madras or Chennai city that we live in. Don’t refer to anyone like that,” he said.

Published - October 03, 2024 02:56 pm IST