JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. This contempt petition was registered by the Court on its own motion on the basis of a report submitted by the Civil Judge, Junior Division & Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sabroom, South Tripura. 2. In the said report the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sabroom, South Tripura Judicial District has stated that on 02.9.2015 since there was a call for bandh by some political parties he had gone to the Court premises in a police vehicle. When he reached the court premises he was stopped by many picketers and amongst them two picketers, namely Shri Biswajit Ghosh and Shri Bijay Dey were Advocate Clerks. They tried to prevent him from entering the court premises and raised slogans. He, however, managed to go inside and some of the members of the court staff also managed to enter the court room. 3. The Judicial Magistrate was thereafter informed that the files were not available since the Nazir Swapan Dey had been prevented from entering the court room by the picketers. Thereafter, keys of the almirahs were obtained from Nazir Swapan Dey through the CTSI Sabroom and the Magistrate started performing his duties. At about 12 noon the picketers who were earlier shouting slogans outside the Court complex came to the record room just next to the court room and dragged out some of the court staff and started assaulting and beating them. The Magistrate rushed out of the court to save them but since the mob consisted of a large number of persons he took a wise decision to go into his chamber along with the court staff. The door of the chamber was locked from inside and the Magistrate was accompanied by the court Sub-Inspector. Even though, the Magistrate had retired to his chamber the fury of the mob did not abate. They started brick batting towards the chamber and some of the brickbats fell inside the chamber. Some of the members of the staff took shelter in the bathroom attached to the chamber but stones were thrown inside the bathroom also. 4. Even though, the Magistrate had retired to his chamber the fury of the mob did not abate. They started brick batting towards the chamber and some of the brickbats fell inside the chamber. Some of the members of the staff took shelter in the bathroom attached to the chamber but stones were thrown inside the bathroom also. 4. Thereafter, on the inquiry made by the Magistrate the members of the staff who were prevented from entering the Court have identified 5(five) of the picketers i.e. Shri Bijay Dey and Biswajit Ghosh, Sri Radhika Ranjan Basak (APP Sabroom) Shri Ratan Nath, Advocate of Sabroom Bar Association and Smt. Rita Kar, MLA Sabroom. 5. After taking cognizance of this report we had issued notice to the respondents. They filed their replies but thereafter they had filed fresh affidavits. In the affidavits which are now being filed it is stated that the incident which occurred on 2nd September, 2015 was unintentional and unwarranted. The respondents have stated that they or the other strikers had no intention to interfere with the running of the business of the Court but the unintentional incident occurred on the spur of the moment based on lack of knowledge about the nature of functioning of the Court. Two of these affidavits have been filed by the Advocate-Clerks and one by the member of the Legislative Assembly. It is not possible for us to accept their version that they were not aware about the running of the business of the Court. Advocate-Clerks and member of the Legislative Assembly are supposed to know how the Court functions. However, all these persons have expressed their regret for such occurrence in the administration of justice. They have apologized for their conduct and we have accepted their apology. As far as Sri Radhika Ranjan Basak, APP and Sri Ratan Nath Advocate are concerned, they have also stated that they had no intention to obstruct the work of the Court and they have also submitted unconditional apology. The conduct of the contemnors was reprehensible. Nobody has the right to prevent anybody else from doing their work especially work of Courts. If any person does not want to attend Court he may do so at his own risk. 6. The Apex Court in Harish Uppal Vs. The conduct of the contemnors was reprehensible. Nobody has the right to prevent anybody else from doing their work especially work of Courts. If any person does not want to attend Court he may do so at his own risk. 6. The Apex Court in Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another : 2003 AIR SCW 43 has held as follows: “45 In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot not attend Courts in pursuance to a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocate decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him.” 7. The Apex Court in Communist party of India(M), Vs. Bharat kumar and others, AIR 1998 SC 184 approved the following observations of the Kerala High Court passed in Bharat Kumar K. Palicha and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1997 Ker 291 which reads as follows: “13. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that a bundh could be peaceful or violent and even if the Court were to act, it could act only to curtail violent bundhs and not peaceful bundhs. It is contended that the Court cannot presume or generalise that the calling of a bundh always entails actual violence or the threat of violence in not participating in or acquiescing in the bundh. The decision in Kameshwar Prusad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 is referred to in that context. This theoretical aspect expounded by counsel for the respondents does not appeal to us especially since as understood in our country and certainly in our State, the calling for a bundh is clearly different from a call for a general strike or a hurtle. We have already noticed that a call for a bundh holds out a warning to the citizen that if he were to go for his work or to open his shop he would be prevented and his attempt to take his vehicle on to the road will also be dealt with. It is true that theoretically it is for the State to control any possible violence or to ensure that a bundh is not accompanied by violence. It is true that theoretically it is for the State to control any possible violence or to ensure that a bundh is not accompanied by violence. But our present set up the reluctance and sometimes the political subservience of the law-enforcing agencies and the absence of political Will exhibited by those in power at the relevant time, has really led to a situation where there is no effective attempt made by the law-enforcing agencies either to prevent violence or to ensure that those citizens who do not want to participate in the bundh are given the opportunity to exercise their right to work, their right to trade or their right to study. We cannot also ignore the increasing frequency in the calling holding and enforcing of the bundhs in the State and the destruction of public and private property. In the face of this reality, we think that when we consider the impact of a bundh on the freedom of a citizen we are not merely the orising but are only taking note of what happens around us when a bundh is called and a citizen attempts either to defy it or seeks to ignore it. We are not in a position to agree with counsel for the respondents that there are no sufficient allegations either in O.P. 7551 of 1994 orin O.P. 12469 of 1995 which would enable us to come to such a conclusion. In fact, the uncontroverted allegations in O.P. 12469 of 1995 are specific and are also supported by some newspaper clippings which though could not be relied on as primary material, could be taken note of as supporting material for the allegations in the Original Petition. 17. No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse the industry and commerce in the entire State or Nation and is entitled to prevent the 'citizens not in sympathy with its view point, from exercising their fundamental rights or from performing their duties for their own benefit or for the benefit of the State or the Nation. Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not he accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it. The claim for relief by the petitioners in these Original Petitions will have to be considered in this background. 18. Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not he accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it. The claim for relief by the petitioners in these Original Petitions will have to be considered in this background. 18. The contention that no relief can be grained against the political parties in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be accepted in is entirely. As indicated already this Court has ample jurisdiction to grant a declaratory relief to the petitioners in the presence of the political party respondents. This is all the more so since the case of the petitioners is based on their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The State has not taken any steps to control or regulate the bundhs. The stand adopted by the Advocate-General is Unit the Court cannot compel the State or the Legislature to issue orders or make law in that regard. As we find that organised bodies or Associations or registered political parties, by their act of calling and holding bundhs trample upon the rights of the citizens of the country protected by the Constitution, we are of the view that this Court has sufficient jurisdiction to declare that the calling of a bundh" and the holding of it is unconstitutional especially since, it is undoubted, that the holding of 'bundhs are not in the imarets of the Nation, but lend to retard the progress of the Nation by leading to national loss of production. We cannot also ignore the destruction of public and private properly when a bundh is enforced by the political parties or other organisations. We are inclined to the view that the political parties and the organisations which call for such bundhs and enforce them are really liable to compensate the Government, the public and the private citizen for the loss suffered by them for such destruction. The State cannot shirk its responsibility of taking steps to recoup and of recouping the loss from the sponsors and organisers of such bundhs. We think that these aspects justify our intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.” From the judgments quoted hereinabove, it is more than apparent that lawyers have no the right to go on strike or give a call for bundh. We think that these aspects justify our intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.” From the judgments quoted hereinabove, it is more than apparent that lawyers have no the right to go on strike or give a call for bundh. The Apex Court has also clearly held that Courts must not be subject to strikes or calls for boycotts. Furthermore, as held in Communist party of India (Supra) case no political party or organization is entitled to paralyze the industry and commerce in the entire state or nation. 8. The 'Rule of Law' is the golden thread which runs through our constitution. There can be no Rule of Law if Courts are boycotted. There can be no Rule of Law when Courts are prevented from functioning properly. It is therefore, more than apparent that the action of the respondent contemnors is totally unacceptable. The contemnors have taken active part in preventing the Courts from functioning normally. This amounts to disruption in the work of the Court. 9. In view of these serious allegations we would have normally been inclined to continue these proceedings and take them to the logical end but we have been persuaded by the eloquence of Sri B.R. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel to take a more lenient view of the matter. The Courts should be magnanimous while dealing with contempt matters and if a person admits his mistake, apologizes and agrees not to commit this case in future the Courts are liberal and take a lenient view of the matter. We may add that the contemnors were present in Court when Shri Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel stated that they regret what they have done and assured this Court that they will not repeat these actions in future. 10. Therefore, We feel that in this case no further action is required. However, it is made clear that in future if any other similar action comes to our notice then no leniency will be shown and stern action shall be taken. It is also made clear that the disposal of this contempt petition will have no effect on the criminal proceedings, if any, pending against the respondent contemnors. 11. The contempt petition stands disposed of.