A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan of the Allahabad High Court has observed that resolutions passed by the Bar Associations that none of its members will do ‘pairvi’ (lobbying) in any criminal case against a member Advocate or his family members are not only un-constitutional, against the ethics of professional advocacy as well as against the concept of Article 14, 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In the considered opinion of this Court equal opportunity to secure justice could not be denied to any citizen of this country.
One Mohammad Ahmad Khan has approached the court and filed an application with a prayer to transfer the proceedings of a case pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, District Balrampur to the Sessions Division District Bahraich or Sessions Division District Ambedkar Nagar or Sessions Division Ayodhya on the ground that opposite party members are Advocates and are practising in outlying court Utraula and Balrampur judgship.
The applicant has vehemently submitted before the coourt that earlier the Advocates of Bar Association Utraula had passed two resolutions dated 6.4.2016 and 11.9.2018 wherein it was resolved that no Advocate shall appear or will file any proceedings of the criminal nature against the member of that bar or their families. Therefore, there is no hope that a fair trial may be conducted at the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula.
On the other hand, the counsel on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the grounds taken by the applicant in his application are frivolous and could not be believed as of now there is no such resolution passed by the Utraula Bar Association is existing and the application has been moved only on the ground of apprehension.
The High Court had directed the District and Sessions Judge, Balrampur to submit a report with regard to the two resolutions mentioned herein before allegedly passed by the Bar Association, Utraula whereby it was allegedly resolved that no Advocate of that Bar Association would do 'pairvi' in a case instituted against any Advocate or his family members.
In compliance of the order of this Court, District Judge, Balrampur has sent a report, wherein he has concluded that such resolutions were passed earlier by the Bar Association, Utraula on 6.4.2016 and 11.9.2018, however subsequently in the general body meeting of the Bar Association held on 2.11.2018, both these resolutions were cancelled.
The Court while allowing the present application has observed that,
“No such resolutions which have been made the basis of filing this application are existing today, it could not be said that the applicant may not have a fair trial by prosecuting his case by a good lawyer or counsel at Utraula but this Court could not lose sight of the fact that earlier two resolutions mentioned herein before were passed by the Bar Association, Utraula.”
The court has further directed that,
Picture Source :