Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1025 (ALL)

Amlawati v. Mahatma Singh, Sub Divisional Officer

2022-07-06

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2. The applicants before this Court had approached the Writ Court through Writ-C No.18129 of 2021, wherein on 09.08.2021 the opposite party was required to decide the proceedings of the Suit, within a period of three months. 3. The order-sheet which has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to the application demonstrates the fact that not even on single occasion from 11.08.2021 to 17.05.2022, the Tehsil Court has functioned. On all the occasions, the judicial work had suffered on the count that the lawyers are abstaining from judicial work. 4. This Court takes note of the fact that on one hand, the writ petitions are filed seeking the direction for early disposal of the revenue proceedings which are pending for a quite long time before the Revenue Court, while lawyers practising at Tehsil level in various districts of the State are mostly on strike. When the order of the writ Court is not adhered by the Officers of the Revenue Department, who are performing the judicial work, the contempt proceedings are initiated against them. 5. I find that this Court cannot proceed to punish the Officers under the contempt jurisdiction as it is the lawyers who are at fault and are not permitting the judicial work to be carried out at various Tehsils of the State. 6. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45 held that the constant strike by the lawyers is hampering the judicial work and the lawyers being the officers of the Court cannot go on token strike. Relevant paragraphs no.20, 21, 22 and 23 are extracted as under:- "20. Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every Advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that Courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of Courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Association expressing want of confidence in judicial officers it would amount to scandalizing the Courts to undermine its authority and there by the Advocates will have committed contempt of Court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh's case (supra) that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex-facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer's duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of Court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Roman Services case, that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call. 21. It must also be remembered that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court. They owe a duty to their client. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt Court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. In the words of Mr. H.M. Seervai, a distinguished jurist:- "Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts. "In my submission", he said that "it is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Court make it clear beyond doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. For in no other way can the Supreme Court and the High Court maintain the high position and exercise the great powers conferred by the Constitution and the law to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill-will." 22. It was expected that having known the well-settled law and having seen that repeated strikes and boycotts have shaken the confidence of the public in the legal profession and affected administration of justice, there would be self regulation. The above mentioned interim Order was passed in the hope that with self restraint and self regulation the lawyers would retrieve their profession from lost social respect. The hope has not fructified. Unfortunately strikes and boycott calls are becoming a frequent spectacle. Strikes, boycott calls and even unruly and unbecoming conduct are becoming a frequent spectacle. On the slightest pretence strikes and/or boycott calls are resorted to. The judicial system is being held to ransom. Administration of law and justice is threatened. The rule of law is undermined. 23. It is held that submissions made on behalf of Bar Councils of U.P. merely need to be stated to be rejected. The submissions based on Advocates Act are also without merit. Section 7 of the Advocates Act provides for the functions of the Bar Council of India. None of the functions mentioned therein authorise paralyzing of the working of Courts in any manner. On the contrary, Bar Council of India is enjoined with the duty of laying down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates. This would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that Advocates do not behave in an unprofessional and unbecoming manner. None of the functions mentioned therein authorise paralyzing of the working of Courts in any manner. On the contrary, Bar Council of India is enjoined with the duty of laying down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates. This would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that Advocates do not behave in an unprofessional and unbecoming manner. Section 48-A gives a right to Bar Council of India to give directions to State Bar Councils. The Bar Associations may be separate bodies but all Advocates who a remembers of such Association are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils and thus the Bar councils can always control their conduct. Further even in respect of disciplinary jurisdiction the final appellate authority is, by virtue of Section 38, the Supreme Court." 7. The Apex Court again in District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary Vs. Ishwar Shandilya and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 1412 , taking the same view, has held that constantly the judicial work is being hampered due to the call given for strike by the Bar Association or boycotting, held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycotting the Court. 8. This Court takes extreme note of this fact that the U.P. Bar Council which is the highest Body of the Advocates has to deal with the problem and see that the lawyers who are enrolled with the U.P. Bar Council follow the mandate of the Apex Court and in case, any lawyers' association of Tehsil of any district go on strike or abstain from judicial work against the mandate of the Apex Court as mandated in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and District Bar Association, Dehradun (Supra), the Council should take strict action against the such members of Bar Association. 9. Present case is a classic example where from 11.08.2021 to 17.05.2022, on all the dates fixed, the lawyers at Tehsil-Padrauna, District Kushinagar have been on strike and the order of the writ Court dated 09.08.2021 could not be carried out and the proceedings under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 could not be concluded within time frame fixed by this Court. 10. It is only the litigants who are suffering at the hands of practising lawyers in various Tehsil and District who are not permitting the judicial work to be carried out by the Officers. 11. 10. It is only the litigants who are suffering at the hands of practising lawyers in various Tehsil and District who are not permitting the judicial work to be carried out by the Officers. 11. This Court directs the opposite party to conclude the proceedings as directed by this Court within time period fixed and permit the applicants to appear in person on the next date fixed. In case, the lawyers are on strike and if any lawyer or the advocate association cause obstruction in the judicial work, he shall take help of police force. 12. Let this order be conveyed to the U.P. Bar Council through Registrar (Compliance), within 48 hours. 13. In view of the above direction, the contempt application stands disposed of.