M.Katju, R.S.Tripathi - (1.) -This matter has come before us on a reference made by the District Judge, Ghaziabad. The details have been mentioned by us in our earlier order dated 8.7.2004. Today the President, High Court Bar Association Sri C. L. Pandey along with the President and Secretary of Ghaziabad District Bar Association (who had been summoned by us by our order dated 8.7.2004) appeared before us. Sri Pandey has placed before us a copy of the resolution of District Bar Association, Ghaziabad of the meeting held on 9.7.2004, by which they have recalled the resolution of dated 5.7.2004 for boycotting the Court of Sri P. K. Srivastava, A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad. They have also given assurance that such act will not be repeated in future.
(2.) THIS Court is extremely reluctant to take action against lawyers as they are also members of the judicial family. However, there are limits beyond which the lawyers should not go. In this case Sri P. K. Srivastava, A.C.J.M. wrote a letter dated 6.7.2004 to the District Judge, Ghaziabad (which is on the record of this case) in which it is mentioned that Sri Subhash Tyagi, President, District Bar Association, Ghaziabad, with others entered into the Chamber of C.J.M., Ghaziabad, where Sri Srivastava was also sitting. Sri Tyagi caught hold of the shoulder of Sri P. K. Srivastava and told him that he must grant bail to Sri M. L. Rai. THIS was a highly objectionable and deplorable conduct of Sri Tyagi. Lawyers must know how to behave in Court. It is the discretion of the Court to grant bail or not, and no lawyer can demand that bail must be granted by the Court. However, in view of the apologies and assurance on behalf of the President and Secretary of Ghaziabad District Bar Association that such behaviour will not be repeated we are not taking any action against Sri Tyagi and others who misbehaved with Sri P. K. Srivastava, but we are giving a severe warning to them that in future such misbehaviour will not be tolerated. In this case the Ghaziabad Bar Association had resolved on 5.7.2004, to boycott the Court of Sri P. K. Srivastava as he had refused bail in a case pertaining to a lawyer who was allegedly impersonating as a High Court Judge. It had been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that lawyers strike is illegal vide Ex. Captain Harish v. Union of India, 2003 (2) ACR 1828 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC 45 ; U. P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra and others, (1995) 5 SCC 716, etc.
(3.) APART from the above, the strike by the district court lawyers in Ghaziabad was wholly unjustified, irresponsible reckless and uncalled for. This Court is not going to tolerate this kind of behaviour by the lawyers of the district courts. The people of the State are fed up of lawyers strikes, which often take place at the drop of a hat. In U. P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra and others (supra) the Supreme Court observed : "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 litigant public in particular and to themselves in the estimation of the general public.";