Swarna Shukla-
Published On: November 20, 2021 at 08:25 IST
The Supreme Court of India, observing that the apology was not unconditional, has rejected the Affidavits of apology submitted by the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association at Jaipur for boycotting a Court.
The Court has directed the office bearers of the Association to come up with a better Affidavit and also to come out with a Resolution stating that the Bar Association in future shall not repeat the acts of boycotting Single Judge’s court, go on strike, pressurise the Chief Justice of the High Court to change the Roaster of a judge or bench whatever maybe the case.
The Court has directed the office bearers of the Association to come up with a better Affidavit and also to come out with a Resolution stating that the Bar Association in future shall not repeat the acts of boycotting Single Judge’s court, go on strike, pressurise the Chief Justice of the High Court pressurise the Chief Justice of the High Court to change the Roster of a particular Judge or the Bench and pressurise Chief Justice and/or any other Judge(s) in any manner whatsoever.
The Bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna in their order said, “Two Affidavits which are affirmed by the President of the Bar Association and tare affirmed by the President of the Bar Association and the Secretary of the Bar Association are filed tendering unconditional apology. The wording used in the Affidavits cannot be said to be tendering unconditional and unqualified apology.
On behalf of the request of Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appearing for the office bearers of the Bar Association the Top Court adjourned the matter for November 25, 2021 to enable them to file a better affidavit, to pass a Resolution and be present before the Top Court.
The issue related to the Jaipur Bar Association’s boycott of the court of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma. The resolution for the boycott was passed after the judge reportedly refused to give an urgent listing to a petition seeking protection for a lawyer. The association demanded that the roster be changed to remove criminal matters from the bench of Justice Sharma. In a related development, the Central Government notified the transfer of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma to Madhya Pradesh High Court two days back, pursuant to a Supreme Court collegium recommendation made in October
The Court, ‘Despite the fact that the Office-bearers of the Bar Association, who are alleged to be in contempt are served long back and earlier also the matter was adjourned at their instance, it is very unfortunate that no counter has been filed till date.’
The Bench had also taken on record a detailed report submitted by the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench pursuant to the Court’s earlier order. Pursuant to a perusal of the report, the Bench remarked that the contents of the report are ‘shocking’.
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 strike illegal.
Case Title: District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya and ors