TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill-will. Therefore, we hold that writ petition is not maintainable. The impugned orders are clearly and palpably illegal and are accordingly quashed. - W.P. No. 553 of 1994, Civil Appeal No. 7872 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 1-9-1995 - RAMASWAMY K. AND HANSARIA B.L. JJ. Dinpankar Gupta, Solicitor-General (amicus curiae) (Uma Nath Singh, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. S.K. Bagga and D.V. Sehgal, Senior Advocates (Mrs. S. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga and R.B. Misra, Advocates with them), for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY, J.- Leave granted. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated October 14, 1993, of the Allahabad High Court made in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 titled The Taxation Bar Association, Agra, through its General Secretary and another v. The State of U.P. through the Secretary, Institutional Finance and others. Pursuant to our direction under article 139A(1) of the Constitution withdrawing the said writ petition to this Court, we dispose of the same ourselves. The crucial question before us is whether the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rime case against the advocates, it would appear that on September 6, 1993, an emergency meeting of associations of Agra and Firozabad was held and it was resolved to boycott all the courts and observe total strike on September 7, 1993; and in a joint meeting of all the associations a resolution was passed resolving immediate enquiry into the charges of corruption against, and transfer of, respondent No. 3. They further resolved to continue to boycott courts and go on indefinite strike called by Taxation Bar Associations. The advocates made representation to the Governor on September 4, 1993 and further representations to all concerned. It would appear that they had also approached the Advocate-General to initiate contempt proceedings against the 3rd respondent and the Advocate-General also appears to have issued show cause notice to the 3rd respondent under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. We are not concerned with the legality or appropriateness of any of the said proceedings. Suffice it to state that when the indefinite strike evoked no response, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition for a mandamus for the aforesaid reliefs. To satisfy whether there is some subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invented the imputation to avoid inconvenient officer. The consequential strike was carried out by the advocates but to no success. When it was proved to be ineffective, they trapped judicial process under article 226 of the Constitution on October 13, 1993 and the High Court at the admission stage issued the interim direction practically allowing the Writ Petition on October 14, 1993. From these facts the question that emerges is whether the High Court, at the instance of the advocates and the Bar, could prohibit the quasi-judicial statutory authority from discharging the statutory duties and whether was justified in directing the Government to withdraw the functions from him and transfer the same to some other jurisdiction. Judicial review is the basic structure of our Constitution which entrusts that power to the judiciary. Judiciary is the sentinel on the qui vive to protect the liberty and rights of the citizens, apart from keeping the other organs of the State exercising that process within the confines of the Constitution and the laws. Articles 323A and 323B empower the Parliament and the appropriate Legislature to make law to constitute Tribunals to adjudicate the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a higher level of rectitude without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Casting defamatory expressions upon the character, ability or integrity of the judge/judicial officer/ authority undermines the dignity of the court/authority and it would tend to create distrust in the popular mind and impedes confidence of the people in the courts/ Tribunals which is of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties. The protection to the judge/judicial officer/authority is not personal but accorded to protect the institution of the judiciary from undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of judicial process. The protection, therefore, is for fearless curial process. Any scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious attack on the judicial officer/authority beyond condonable limits, amounts to scandalising the court/Tribunal amenable to not only conviction for its contempt but also liable to libel or defamation and damages personally or group libel. Maintenance of dignity of the court/judicial officer or quasi-judicial authority is, therefore, one of the cardinal principles of rule of law embedded in judicial review. Any uncalled for statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers thought they had a just cause of complaint, they had two courses open to them-to make a representation to the District Judge or to the High Court. Thus boycotting the court was held to be highhanded and unjustified and further action was dropped with the hope that those observations would be sufficient to prevent any further recurrence of conduct of a similar nature with the warning that if the conduct was repeated the consequences might be of serious nature. This ratio was followed In the matter of a Pleader AIR 1924 Rangoon 320 wherein also in pursuance of the resolution of the local Bar Association to boycott the court, a pleader refrained from appearing in the court without obtaining his client's consent and left his client undefended as a result of which his client was detained in jail for about a month more. The Division Bench held that the pleader was guilty of unprofessional conduct and the subsequent consent given by the client did not affect his liability. It has been a frequent spectacle in the recent past to witness that advocates strike work and boycott the courts at the slightest provocation overlooking the harm caused to the judicial system in general and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the attorneys sought to obtain favourable legislation. The Federal Constitution's First Amendment does not protect them. Shri K.K. Venugopal, a leading senior member of this Bar and ex-president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, in his article "The Legal Profession at the Turn of the Century" [(1989) 1 NLSJ 121], opined that boycott amounts to contempt of court and the advocates participating in the strike keep their clients as hostages and their interests in jeopardy. Shri P.P. Rao, another senior member of this Bar and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association in his article "Strike by Professionals" published in Indian Advocate-journal of the Bar Association of India [Vol. XXIII 1991 (Part I)]-opined that it amounts to professional misconduct. Shri H.M. Seervai, a noted distinguished jurist in his article "Lawyers strike and the Duty of the Supreme Court" republished in the Indian Advocate [Vol. XXIII 1991 (Part I)], opined that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of the lawyers admittedly is at its nadir and if remedial steps are not initiated from within, a day will come when society finds it convenient to dispense with them altogether. If it happens, it will be bad not only for the profession but also for freedom, democracy and rule of law in the country. In Court of its own motion v. Mr. B.D. Kaushik (1991) 4 Delhi Lawyer 316, a Full Court of the Delhi High Court was constrained to consider the outrageous conduct on the part of M/s. B.D. Kaushik, Rajinder Kumar, Rajiv Khosla, Jugal Wadhwa, R.N. Vats, Jatin Singh and P.S. Rathee, contemners in that case. The contemners, aided and abetted by others in large number stormed various court rooms on September 26, 1991 at about 10.30 a.m., when Judges were transacting their judicial functions; they individually and collectively stood on the chairs, tables and dais of the Court Masters and acted in a menacing manner, shouted abuses and slogans such as "Chief Justice and Judges Hai Hai, murdabad". They also prevented various lawyers from discharging their judicial functions as officers of the court and also stopped the litigants from conducting their cases in the court. In a threatening tone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or penal consequences, whatever, by any association of lawyers, and shall not suffer any expulsion or threat of expulsion therefrom. (3) The above will not preclude other forms of protest by practicing lawyers in courts such as, for instance, wearing of arm bands and other forms of protest which in no way interrupt or disrupt the court proceedings or adversely affect the interest of the litigant. Any such forms of protest shall not however be derogatory to the court or to the profession. (4) Office bearers of a Bar Association (including Bar Council) responsible for taking decisions mentioned in clause (1) above shall ensure that such decisions are implemented in the spirit of what is stated in clauses (1), (2) and (3) above." Accordingly, the court directed the members of the Bar to adopt further course of action in terms thereof. Instead of working that order in its letter and spirit and given a trial, strikes or boycotts of courts/Tribunals are being continued abegging. When in Writ Petition No. 553 of 1994 titled Supreme Court Bar Association v. State of U.P. concerning contempt of the High Court by some of the members of the Bar Association of the Allahabad High Court an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and further to deprive that authority to exercise those powers by transferring the same to any other jurisdiction. S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1274 relied on by the 1st respondent is of no avail. In that case the acts and omissions were imputed to the officer, doubting his integrity, good faith and devotion to duty expected of a civil servant, though integral to the discharge of statutory functions under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The question was whether the officer is amenable to disciplinary jurisdiction when his conduct or integrity was subject of disciplinary enquiry under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. It was held therein that he was amenable to disciplinary jurisdiction and action for misconduct. This case has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The decision in Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur [1965] 57 ITR 349 (SC); AIR 1966 SC 81 also is of no assistance to the 1st respondent. Though this Court was considering the scope and nature of the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226, there is no doubt now as regards the scope of the jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
