Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1235 (ALL)

Rakesh Chandra v. Jyoti Singh

2022-08-04

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant before this Court had approached the Writ Court through Writ-C No.31994 of 2021, wherein on 04.12.2021 the opposite party was required to decide the restoration application filed in Case No.4636 of 2018 bearing Computerized Case No.T201814360304636 under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of three months. 3. The order-sheet of the proceedings has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of contempt application, which reveals that lawyers practising in Tehsil Machhalishar, District Jaunpur are constantly on strike from 18.10.2021 to 11.07.2022. As such, the officers could not proceed with the matter and decide the proceedings due to constant call of strike given by the members of Bar at Tehsil Machhalishar District Jaunpur. 4. 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 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. 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. 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. "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. 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." 5. The Apex Court again in District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary Vs. Further even in respect of disciplinary jurisdiction the final appellate authority is, by virtue of Section 38, the Supreme Court." 5. 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. 6. This Court finds that the call given by the Bar Association of Tehsil Machhalishar, District Jaunpur is against the mandate of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra) and District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary (supra) and the lawyers are in contempt of the order of Apex Court. 7. This Court directs the U.P. Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the striking lawyers of Tehsil Machhalishar, District Jaunpur. It is further directed that the opposite party shall comply the order of Writ Court and expeditiously decide the matter preferably within next three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. 8. In case the lawyers are on strike, the officer concerned shall permit the applicant to appear in person and hear the matter and decide the same. In case the lawyers insist and obstruct working of the Court then the help of police may be taken by the officer concerned. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the contempt application stands disposed of. 10. Registrar (Compliance) shall send a copy of this order to the U.P. Bar Council for necessary compliance.