The Supreme Court rejected affidavits of apologies presented by the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association in Jaipur for boycotting a court, observing that the apology was not unconditional and without reservation.
The Court ordered the members of the Bureau of the Association to produce a better affidavit and also to issue a resolution stating that the Bar Association will not repeat in the future acts of boycott of the single judge tribunal, strike, to put pressure on the Chief Justice of the High Court to change the list of a particular judge or the bench and to put pressure on the Chief Justice and / or any other judge in any way.
The bench of Judges MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna in their order,
“Two affidavits which are confirmed by the President of the Bar Association and the Secretary of the Bar Association are filed with an unconditional apology. The wording used in the affidavits cannot be said to be an unconditional and unqualified apology.
We reject and return the affidavits with the liberty for the members of the office of the Association to file a better affidavit and also to come out with a resolution of the Bar Association that in the future such acts will not be repeated and that The Bar Association should not go on strike and / or pressure the Chief Justice and / or any other judge in any way and even pressure the Chief Justice of the High Court to do so. modifies the list of a particular judge or magistracy. “
On behalf of the request of Senior Counsel Siddharth Dave Representing members of the Bar Council office, the High Court adjourned the case until November 25, 2021 to allow them to file a better affidavit, pass a Resolution and attend the High Court.
On November 16, 2021, the Supreme Court noted with dismay that members of the Bar Association of the High Court of Rajasthan in Jaipur had not taken seriously the contempt notice sent to them for boycotting a seat of the High Court in the context of a strike.
On October 5, 2021, the court issued an opinion and ordered the president, secretary and members of the board of the Bar Association of the High Court of Rajasthan in Jaipur to explain why contempt proceedings could not be initiated. against them.
At a later hearing, the Supreme Court observed that no bar can pressure the chief justice to change a judge’s list.
The issue concerned the boycott of the Satish Kumar Sharma Court of Justice by the Jaipur Bar Association. The boycott resolution was passed after the judge reportedly refused to give an urgent list to a petition asking for the protection of a lawyer. The association called for the list to be amended to remove Judge Sharma’s criminal cases from the bench. In a related development, the central government notified the transfer of Judge Satish Kumar Sharma to Madhya Pradesh High Court two days ago, following a recommendation from the Supreme Court panel made in October.
A bench consisting of Judges MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted on Tuesday that it was unfortunate that no counter-affidavit had been filed to date by members of the bar who had committed contempt.
“Despite the fact that the members of the bar, who are presumed in contempt of the bar, have been served a long time ago and the case has also been adjourned to their proceedings, it is very unfortunate that no counter has been filed to date “, the Court had observed.
Further believing that the members of the office had not given credit to the contempt notice, the judiciary noted:
“There is no written response from the members of the Bar Association board. It appears at first glance that the Bar Association did not take the matter very seriously.”
The Court had also taken note of a detailed report submitted by the Registrar General of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, in accordance with the previous order of the Court. Following a review of the report, the House noted that the contents of the report are “shocking”.
Supreme Court issued notice of contempt show cause to Jaipur Bar in case District Bar Association, Dehradun through its secretary c. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors, in which he learned about the trend in lawyers’ strikes. The judiciary had previously sought help from the Indian Bar Council to resolve the issue.
The Indian Bar Council later told the judiciary that after a meeting with state bar councils it proposed to develop rules to restrict lawyer strikes and court boycotts and to take action against them. bars that act in violation and against lawyers who promote such strikes through social networks.
At a later court date, the judiciary said it would adopt a “detailed order” to deal with the issue. The judiciary also observed that it was considering setting up a local level grievance mechanism for lawyers so that their legitimate grievances could be addressed through an appropriate platform instead of resorting to a strike.
On February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court, taking seriously the fact that despite the consistent decisions of the Court, lawyers / Bar Orders went on strike, took SUO motorcycle knowledge and sent opinions to the Indian Bar Council and all State Bar Councils to suggest the way forward and make concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes / abstention from work by lawyers.
the suo motu The court action came by dismissing an appeal filed by the Dehradun District Bar Association against a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which declared the lawyers’ strikes illegal.
Case title: Dehradun District Bar Association v. Ishwar Shandilya and Ors
Click here to read / download the order