Title: Chennai: Mahatma Gandhi and Thiruvalluvar Portraits Exclusive in Courts, Bar Associations Seek Withdrawal
In a recent development, the Madras High Court Registration Department has issued an official directive stating that only portraits of Mahatma Gandhi and Thiruvalluvar should be displayed in the District Courts across Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, while instructing the removal of portraits of other leaders.
This decision comes as lawyers from Tamil Nadu and Puducherry had sought permission to display pictures and statues of prominent leader Ambedkar and senior lawyers within the court premises. However, taking into consideration potential law and order issues, the request was subsequently rejected during a meeting of all judges of the Madras High Court.
This is not the first instance where the court has addressed the display of statues and portraits within the courts. In 2013, the Madras High Court ordered the removal of an Ambedkar statue installed at the entrance of the newly built Alandur Court in the Kanchipuram district.
During a meeting held on April 11 this year, all judges of the High Court unanimously decided to prohibit the display of statues and portraits of political leaders in the courts. As a result, Jyoti Raman, the Chief Registrar of the Madras High Court, issued an announcement further clarifying that only portraits of Mahatma Gandhi and Thiruvalluvar will be allowed in the District Courts of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, with no exceptions permitted for any other images.
To ensure compliance with this directive, the Bar Council has been instructed to file complaints against any individuals or organizations violating the court’s order and subsequently take appropriate action against them.
However, the notification by the High Court Registry Department has faced opposition from various bar associations and political party leaders who are now actively seeking the withdrawal of this directive.
The issue surrounding the display of statues and portraits within court premises continues to stir debate, with proponents arguing for the recognition of prominent figures who have significantly contributed to social and political change, while opponents emphasize the importance of maintaining the neutrality and decorum of the courts.
It remains to be seen how this situation will evolve and if any compromise can be reached between the opposing parties involved.