BCI Writes to BCD Seeks Withdrawal of Call for Complete Abstinence from Work.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Bar Council of India has written a letter to State Bar Council of Delhi seeking issuance of directions to Lawyers to immediately withdraw the call for complete abstinence from Judicial work in District Courts across the State on 9-11-2021.
According to the letter, it has been brought to BCI’s notice that the co-ordination Committee of All District Bar Association of Delhi on 8th November have unanimously resolved to go on complete abstinence of work on 8th November in the District Courts against the recent judgement of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mr. Gajender Singh Nagar, of the Tis Hazari Court, convicting former Delhi High Court Bar Association President Mr. Rajiv Khosla for assaulting a women lawyer.
The BCI has further asked for issuance of guidance to Lawyers to withdraw the call for carrying on indefinite boycott of a judicial Officer, if the issue being agitated upon by them is not resolved to their satisfaction after meeting with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court.
The BCI’s letter further mentions that, frequent strikes further complicate issues and weaken the Advocates fraternity, as strikes are considered illegal by Supreme Court of India, when it concerns Advocates, who are considered as officers of the court and as a part of the judicial machinery.
The BCI in its letter has said that this move will be seen as a sign of distress and pressure tactics restored to by the most powerful class of the citizens.
The letter has further said that Being harbingers of the legal process, practice and procedure, the lawyer’s fraternity is expected to do the needful not through strike and agitation but by way of providing legal assistance to Mr. Rajiv Khosla to file an appeal against the impugned order and judgment and to avail of all other legal remedies available under the law, as Mr Khosla is aggrieved of the referred order and judgment.
Elaborating upon the legal profession the letter points out that Our profession, is considered as a noble profession and the professional work rendered by us is unique and for the benefit of the common man including aggrieved parties who come to Advocates in the hope that Advocates will be able to get them justice when all doors are closed for them.
The later has further mentioned that it may be reminded that vide order dated 28-02-2020 in S.L.P.(C) No.5440/2020 passed by the Supreme Court of India) in District Bar Association Dehradun through its Secretary Vs. Shri Ishwar Shandilya & Ors it was observed
“7. As ……, in spite of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal (supra), Common Cause, A Registered Society (supra) and Krishnakant Namrakar (supra) and despite the warnings by the courts time and again, still, in some of the courts, the lawyers go on strikes/are on strikes. It appears that despite the strong words used by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, criticizing the conduct on the part of the lawyers to go on strikes, it appears that the message has not reached. Even despite the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 29.09.2002, thereafter, no further concrete steps are taken even by the Bar Council of India and/or other Bar Councils of the States. A day has now come for the Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of the States to step in and to take concrete steps. It is the duty of the Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and unbecoming conduct by any lawyer. As observed by this Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra), the Bar Council of India is enjoined with a duty of laying down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette for Advocates. It is further observed that this would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that advocates do not behave in an unprofessional and unbecoming manner. Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right to the Bar Council of India to give directions to the State Bar Councils. It is further observed that the Bar Associations may be separate bodies but all advocates who are members of such associations are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils and thus the Bar Councils can always control their conduct. Therefore, taking a serious note of the fact that despite the aforesaid decisions of this Court, still the lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes, we take suo moto cognizance and issue notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers.
Therefore, in lieu of entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, abstaining and resorting to strikes or trying to subvert the judicial machinery by pressurizing to change a judicial decision by way of abstaining from court work/strikes, by boycott of a judicial officer, and/or by trying to procure any other order/decision in any manner which is against the concepts and tenets and procedures of codified law, is not in any way the correct or legal course of action.
The Bar Council of India through its secretary Mr. Srimanto Sen has further stated that while representations of any nature, as planned may be handed over and any legal recourse may be availed too. There should not be interference in the judicial and court work.
