In a stern move against sustained defiance of court orders, the Madras High Court has sentenced advocate A Mohandass to four months of simple imprisonment and slapped a ₹2,000 fine on him for contempt of court. The reason? He refused to budge from a rented property despite multiple eviction orders from both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The bench led by Justice N Sathish Kumar made it clear: Mohandass didn’t just overstay—he overstepped. Despite giving an undertaking that he would vacate the premises, the advocate later launched a fresh set of claims in an attempt to delay the process, drawing the Court’s ire.
“There is no genuine remorse, only repeated disobedience,” the Court noted, adding that mere fines wouldn’t suffice in such cases where orders are flouted with impunity.
The story traces back to 2006, when Mohandass took the property on rent from a man named Parsanchand. After the landlord passed away in 2009, his son, P Vikash Kumar, sought to reclaim the premises for personal use. When Mohandass refused, Kumar initiated legal action in 2015 and eventually secured an eviction order in 2021. The advocate, however, continued to resist at every stage.
Even after the Supreme Court granted him a final grace period until May 31, 2025, to vacate—and he filed an affidavit stating he would comply—Mohandass failed to follow through. Instead, he contested the scope of the eviction, alleged bias by court officials, and claimed part of the property wasn’t covered under the original order.
When a court-appointed bailiff arrived to enforce the final eviction, Mohandass was not only present but attempted to obstruct the process—an act the Court viewed as the last straw.
The High Court was unsparing in its critique: “A lawyer who uses his membership in the Bar as a shield to flout court orders threatens the very foundation of justice.”
In a further step, the Court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to begin disciplinary proceedings, underlining that such defiance, while perhaps not professional misconduct in the technical sense, certainly qualified as “other misconduct.”
Even the apology offered by Mohandass in his final affidavit failed to convince. The Court dismissed it as a half-hearted line tucked away at the end of a long explanation, lacking any real sincerity.
The judgment serves as a clear signal: when an officer of the court turns into an obstacle to justice, the robes of the profession offer no sanctuary.
