Chaini Parwani-
Published On: October 05, 2021 at 16:45 IST
A Contempt Notice was issued by the Supreme Court to the office bearers of the Bar Association of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur for boycotting a Bench of the High Court as part of strike.
A Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed that despite recurrent Judgments of the Supreme Court which forbid Court Boycotts and deprecated Lawyers Strikes, the Jaipur HC Bar Association went on a strike on September 27.
Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, informed the Bench that Jaipur Bar Association has replied to the order stating that “the Boycott was only with respect to only one court of the High Court.”
The Supreme Court oppressively stated “Even that also cannot be tolerated. To boycott only one court will hamper the independence of judiciary and there may be a pressure on the particular judge whose court is boycotted and it may lead to demoralize the judiciary.”
The notices, which are ordered to the President, Secretary and the Office Bearers of the Bar Association of High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur to be presented on the respondents through the Registrar General of the High Court, are returnable on October 25.
The Order highlighted few Landmark cases which were contrary to the previous decisions of Court; A Registered Society vs. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 295; Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27.
The matter relates to the Jaipur Bar Association’s boycott of the court of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma where the resolution for the boycott was issued after the Judge allegedly denied to give an urgent listing to a Petition seeking protection for a Lawyer.
Further the Bar Council of India later informed the bench that after a discussion with the State Bar Councils, it is initiating to frame rules to reduce strikes by lawyers and court boycotts.
The Bench also stated that it is foreseeing setting up grievance redressal mechanism at local levels for lawyers so that their admissible grievances can be addressed through a appropriate platform instead of resorting to strikes.
On February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court, taking a serious note of the fact that regardless consistent decisions of the Court, the lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes.
Hence, the Supreme Court had taken suo moto cognisance and issued notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to advocate the further course of action and to give solid suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers.
The suo motu action of the Court came while dismissing an appeal filed by the District Bar Association Dehradun against a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which declared the lawyers strikes illegal.
Also Read: Supreme Court grants one-week time to clarify irregularities at Tirupati Temple