Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations (CDRO)

Press Release
09-01-2017

Co ordination of Democratic Rights Organisation (CDRO) strongly condemns the

arrest of Advocate Murugan, Secretary Centre for Protection of Civil Liberties (CPCL),
on 8th January by the Tamilnadu Q branch police. The police had gone to his house
in the early morning 4 oclock, in the pretext of search operations with the search
warrant order from Karur district magistrate. And the Q branch police arrested him
under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) sections 18(a), 18(b), 20 and 38 &
IPC 120(b) for allegedly arranging shelter for two women Maoists who were
arrested in Karur five months before. And they took with them all the case
documents , files, preparations for final arguments for some cases, some common
books and Homeopathy medicines & medical book.
Advocate Murugan has been in the civil rights activity for more than 10 years and
has been in the forefront taking up the cause of political prisoners cases including
that of maoists. He has also been representing the two women maoists arrested five
months before in Karur. The court had issued search warrant of Advocate Murugan,
in compliance with the Q branch, in the Karur case. The order issued by the district
magistrate should have ordered restraint on the search, as he must know that
advocates , who are regarded as officers of the court, are part and parcel of the
court and play vital roles in the administration of justice, are bound to be in
possession of all documents for reference and defence of their clients who are
accused before court of law.
Section II of Bar Council of India 1975, in part VI chapter II provides for duties of
advocates towards his clients. Rules 15 and rules 19 has relevance to the same.
Rule 15 states that it shall be the duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold the
interest of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any
unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. He shall defend the person
accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, bearing in mind that his loyalty to the law which requires that no man
should be convicted without adequate evidence.

Rules 19 states that an advocate shall not act on the instructions of any person
other than his client or his authorized agent.
And an advocate should not by any means, directly or indirectly, disclose the
communications made by his client to him. He shall also not disclose the advice

given by him in the proceedings if it does not violate section 126 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.

Advocate Murugan, in defence of maoist clients being Indian citizens has only
been discharging his duty as under the provisions of advocate acts and it was
not in any way violative of the legal provisions and he is entitled for practice of
his profession as guaranteed under 19(g) of Constitution of india. Without any
such restraints the karur Courts compliance with Police , the search warrant
leaves Q branch the high possibility of utilizing any defence materials of the
advocate to implicate him in the same case he is defending. This is a fundamental
violation of the right of the advocate to defend his client and lack of protection from
the court leaves total violation of fundamental right to justice of the advocate and
thus his client.
Recently the Indian Association of Peoples Lawyers (IAPL) Fact finding team to
Chattisgarh over the encounter killings in Chattisgarh was arrested and charged
with Chattisgarh Special Public Safety Act and still remanded in prison. Earlier
Advocate Khurram Parvez, democratic rights activist of Kashmir was arrested under
Public Safety Act. Similar attacks on the defenders of demecratic and civil rights has
been on the increase in the past.
The situation is very grim. There is an increasingly growing intolerance of the state
against the resistance to neoliberal polices of the governments. The governments
have been arresting and implicating false cases on Human rights activists, lawyers,
democrats and journalists preventing them from observing ground reality by force.
CDRO considers the issuance of search warrant on a court officer without any
restraints for safeguarding his legal professions and practices guaranteed by Bar
Council of India rules and Indian Republican Constitution suffers from lack of
application of mind.
CDRO condemns the branding and arresting of any Advocates defending the
accused under UAPA and insists that courts should regard that no one is guilty until
proved before law and provide complete protection for such advocates to ensure
legal provisions.
CDRO condemns the highhandedness of Tamilnadu State police in arresting
Advocate Murugan and implicating him in the same case as the client he is
defending as per the legal provisions.

CDRO insists that Advocate Murugan should be released immediately,

unconditionally and all cases foisted upon him be withdrawn and return all the case
files and documents taken forthwith.

In solidarity
Sugumaran
CDRO, (CPDR-TN)