The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has initiated suo motu proceeding by taking the cognizance of recent strikes and abstaining from work by the members of bar on account of a murder of an advocate.
The Court had requested learned Advocate General, learned Additional Advocate General and also the representatives of the Bar Council of India and Rajasthan State Bar Council to address the Court today.
The Court showed its disatifaction when it was informed by the Advocate General that he has not been allowed and obstructed to attend the Court proceedings today. He submitted that a threatening letter has been given to him by office bearers of the Bar Association making a grievance that he is not cooperating in the agitation.
The Court expounded that ‘this indeed a serious matter. Any act of obstruction from any lawyer or litigant from appearing in the Court is to be construed as a direct offend to the administration of justice’.
The Advocate General further submitted that that the strike and abstention from work is against the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others and series of decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time.
The Court also affirmed that the law in this regard is very clear and has been succinctly stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of decisions including Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal (supra). It is well settled by now that the abstention from work is not permissible in law.
The Court opinied that the suggestion which transpired during the course of hearing in the present case is that attempt being made to resolve the dispute, may be taken to its logical end as soon as possible. For this purpose, the learned Advocate General, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, learned representatives of the Bar Council of Rajasthan and learned Members of the Bar Council of India, representative of Bar Council of State to Bar Council of India may sit together and try to resolve the issue.
The Bench listed the matter on 03.03.23 for next hearing and awaiting for the responses on record by the learned Advocate General, representatives of Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council. Since Mr. Suresh Chandra Shrimali stated that he has appeared in the capacity as the Member of the Bar Council of India, on the intimation given to him by the learned Advocate General. We are inclined to issue notice to the Bar Council of India through its Secretary to assist the Court through its duly represented counsel.
In Last the Court reiterated that any attempt made to obstruct any lawyer or litigant from entering the Court and appearing in the Court to argue the matter shall be viewed strictly and they shall be treated as an act of obstruction in the administration of justice and suitable action would be initiated against such persons.
Case Details
Case:- DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3188/2023
Petitioner:- Suo Motu
Respondent:- State of Rajsthan
Counsel for the Petitioner – By Order
Counsel for the Respondent - Mr. M S Singhvi
Judge: Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
