Bench Called ‘Dallal’: Shahdara Bar Declares Zero Tolerance, Boycotts Two Karkardooma Judges

(Judicial Quest News Network)

New Delhi, 6 August 2026 — In an unprecedented assertion of collective dignity, the Shahdara Bar Association (SBA) has announced a complete boycott of two judicial officers at the Karkardooma Courts complex, declaring “zero tolerance” towards what it termed persistent judicial misconduct and humiliation of advocates.

The resolution, passed after an urgent Executive Committee meeting convened on 6 August 2026, directs member-lawyers to refrain from appearing physically or via video-conferencing—before Sh. S.S. Rathi, Principal Judge, Family Courts, East District, and Ms. Ritika Kansal, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), East District, both posted at Karkardooma.

Trigger: “Dallal” Remark Sparks Outrage

The immediate provocation came when Judge Rathi allegedly addressed a senior member of the Bar as a “Dallal”a derogatory term implying brokerage or middleman ship while the advocate was discharging professional duties.

The Association described the remark as “totally unacceptable” and stated it “cannot be tolerated at all”.

This incident, according to the SBA, is the latest in a series of complaints alleging discourteous, humiliating and disrespectful treatment meted out to lawyers by the two judicial officers.

Repeated Complaints, No Action

The resolution notes that the Shahdara Bar had previously filed multiple complaints, reminders and representations with the District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, seeking corrective action against the two officers. However, the Association claims that no disciplinary steps were taken and that the conduct of the concerned judges showed no improvement

Bench–Bar Relationship Must Rest on Mutual Respect

Emphasising the constitutional and professional ethos governing courtrooms, the SBA underlined that while advocates are duty-bound to uphold the highest standards of conduct and decorum, judicial officers are equally obligated to treat members of the Bar with courtesy, patience and fairness.

The resolution states:

“The relationship between the Bench and the Bar is founded upon mutual respect, dignity and cooperation… The Association wishes to make it unequivocally clear that it shall not tolerate any instance where an advocate is subjected to humiliation, intimidation [or] unwarranted [treatment].”

Boycott Directive: No Physical or VC Appearance

In exercise of its collective resolve, the Executive Committee resolved that:

• Member-advocates of the Shahdara Bar Association shall not appear before the two named judicial officers, either in person or through video-conferencing, until further orders.
• The boycott is framed as a measure to safeguard the dignity, independence and self-respect of the legal profession, and to press for institutional accountability.

Context: A Pattern of Assertive Bar Action in Delhi

This is not the first time the Shahdara Bar has taken strong collective action to defend perceived institutional dignity. In recent years, the Association has:

• Barred police entry into the Karkardooma Courts complex over alleged misconduct and rude behaviour by police officials towards lawyers.
• Called for work suspensions and strikes at Karkardooma over issues ranging from police inaction in assault cases to protests against proposed restrictions on bar boycotts in the draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill.

The latest resolution, however, is distinctive in directly targeting judicial officers and invoking the language of “zero tolerance” towards judicial misconduct.

What Happens Next?

The resolution serves formal notice to the higher judiciary and district administration that the Bar considers the matter grave enough to warrant boycott as a last resort.

While the Advocates (Amendment) Bill proposals seek to restrict strikes and boycotts that obstruct court functioning, the SBA’s stance appears to rely on the argument that protests against professional conduct, working conditions, or administrative matters including alleged judicial discourtesy remain a legitimate form of collective expression.

The Delhi High Court and the District Judge, East District, may now be expected to examine the complaints, the boycott call, and the larger question of Bench–Bar decorum in the lower judiciary.