Date of judgment
23rd December 2021
Bench
Justice Munir.J
Parties
Appellant- Imtiyaj Ali and Ors
Respondent- Addl. Commissioner Faizabad – I, Mandal Ayodhya, Ayodhya and Anr.
Subject
The Court recently observed that a meeting for condolence can be held by the members of Bar but this should not come in the way of functioning of Court.
Overview
- There was no progress seen in a case at hand before Additional Commissioner, Faizabad, Ayodhya. When this matter was brought before the Court, it asked for a report from the Commissioner on this matter.
- On 17th December, 2021, the Court read a report which was filed by Addl. Commissioner, Ayodhya, in which the dates of the strike were stated as a reason due to which the hearings in the matter could not be undertaken by the Commissioner.
- The Court observed that Commissioner Court’s Bar and Faizabad Association brought the functioning of Commissioner’s Court to stop for a while as a result of repeated strike.
- The Court also noted the fact that some affidavits were filed by the Secretaries and Presidents of Faizabad Bar Association and the Bar Association of the Commissioner’s Court, stating that unless and until there were any extraordinary circumstances, they will not let the judicial work stop. But the two office-bearers were asking the members of Bar to abstain from judicial work for going on strike. So, on 17th December the Court sought the affidavits of Secretary, Commissioner Court’s Bar Association and the President.
- On 23rd December, the Commissioner Court’s Bar Association, the President and the Secretary, all appeared in the Court through their counsels and sought an apology. They assured the Court that there would be no further instances where the Court would have to stop working unless and until there was a grave situation.
Judgment analysis
- On 23rd December, the apology was qualified. The Court referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of District Bar Association, Dehradun through secretary v Inshwar Shandilya and Ors, where it was held that the Bar Association has no right or freedom to block the proceeding of the Court or to stop it for any kind of strike.
- Hence, the apology was accepted by the Court and the Court ordered that no further resolutions directing the members of the Bar to abstain from work shall be passed. The Court held “the members of Bar can hold a meeting as a result of demise of a member but it does not have the right to obstruct the functioning of the Court. And this order is applicable to everyone.”
- The Court directed that the Commissioner should handle the case each day and a status report should be submitted by the next date.
- The Court also ordered that the Commissioner is supposed to submit a report stating whether any resolution has been passed which obstructs the functioning of the Court.
Conclusion
A boycott of the courts cannot be condoned. The independence of the judiciary would be harmed by such a boycott. There might also be pressure on the judge in question. The judiciary's morale may suffer as a result of this.
The Bar Council of India has the authority under Section 35 of the Advocate Act to convene a disciplinary committee against an advocate if it has cause to suspect the advocate has committed professional or other misconduct.
The Supreme Court of India said in Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India that if any advocate association calls for a strike, the Bar Council of India must take strict action against that association. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India ruled in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India that no Bar Association has the authority to call a strike.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
