Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, Abdur Rahim - (1.) WHILE on this writ petition, Mr. Mukesh Prasad, Advocate, was arguing, a delegation of lawyers, young in age, entered the Court room. They were telling the lawyer who was arguing to cease his submission and intimating the Court that the Bar was on strike. On an inquiry from the Court they gave their names as Messrs. A.N. Singh, Anumesh Chatterji, D.P. Singh, C.S. Chaturvedi, Mahsood Ahmad, S.P. Shukla, Vijai Jaiswal and Ramendra Shukla, Advocates. They were beckoning counsel for the petitioner to get out of the Court room. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances clearly, was perplexed as he knew not what to do; whether to remain in Court and continue his submission or give in to the request couched as an intimidation to abandon the bar of the Court and succumb to the 'request' of the striking lawyers and go out of the Court Room. What happened today also happened on Friday last. Whatever happened on Friday last is recorded on the writ petition as an order of this Court. It is the writ petition in re. the matter of G.K. Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others. The order of the Court in that writ petition reads: Amidst submissions being made on this petition by the representative of the petitioner, Mr. Yogendra Kumar, as his lawyer could not appear because the Advocates are abstaining from the Court, the proceedings were interrupted by the delegation of lawyers led by Ms. Sarita Singh, Vice President, Bar Association, and Mr. S.K. Vidyarthi, Advocate, accompanied by several other lawyers. Their contention was that the lawyers are on strike and it would be better if the Court were to rise. Clearly the atmosphere in the Court is not such which lends itself to a judicial proceeding and the Court has no hesitation in recording that the proceedings have been interrupted and regard being had to the circumstances of today's and past few days, the Court is constrained to retire to Chambers. But, while we had examined the petition on merits, the Court is of the view that there are some matters which need to be explained and probably it would be better if the representative of the petitioner arguing in person has the assistance of his lawyer. For this purpose, this petition may be laid before the Court on Monday next.
(2.) FOR the last two weeks, as today and as on Friday last, when the Courts began their proceedings for the day, the judicial proceedings collapsed as a result of the strike or a hartal; whatever may be the cause of it. It was on 25th April, 1994, that the lawyers struck work. Proceedings in every Division of the Court was frustrated. The Judges retired to Chambers and this pattern continued unabated until today. Today is not the day to seek an explanation for it, notwithstanding the fact that whatever has happened, strikes at the very functioning of the Court. Thus, let there be no mistake that it is contempt in the face of the Court and in the face of every Court and the various Divisions wherever Court is constituted within the precinct of the building of this High Court. Day in and day out since 25 April, 1994, the lawyers have abstained from work and judges have retired to Chambers and by and large delegations of lawyers have moved from corridors to corridors and from Court rooms to Court rooms virtually hinting to the Courts convened, to rise and get down to chambers. No judicial system condones such an exercise that collapses proceedings of public Courts functioning under the Constitution. Some of these aspects are noticed in a decision of this Court in re. Nirdosh Chaturvedi, Advocate, General Secretary, Bar Association, Aonla, Bareilly v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (1991) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 640. That was a case where at a small outlying Munsifs Court, the lawyers struck work. The Court has noticed the situation of strikes and collapsing Court proceedings. The circumstances are not dissimilar except that, whereas, the Bar Association, Aonla, Bareilly, was a very small body of lawyers, the High Court Bar Association, is the largest Bar Association in the State of Uttar Pradesh, if not in India. Summer vacations are about to begin and there are hardly nine working days left, How much work the Court might be able to put in and with what priorities with the weight of the backlog which has piled up, is anybody's guess. Indeed, the Court will have to suffer to work under pressure.
(3.) ONE thing is clear and on this there is no doubt that no one can ask a Court convened to discharge judicial business to rise unless it does so itself. To strike at the Courts, is gross contempt. It is ex facie contempt. But, the Court will not deal with the situation today. All the lawyers who are before the Court today and whose names have been recorded in this order, are young and may be, are not well -versed with the complexities of what constitutes 'criminal contempt' when the administration of justice is interfered with. Today, they are ill -equipped to give their defence and possibly may not be aware that justification may not be a good defence. To judge them today, notwithstanding that they have committed grievous errors in not permitting a Court system to function, may not be fair. They are not alone in what they do. For whatever has taken place, each office bearer of the Bar Association owes an explanation to the Court whether it is the President, the Secretary, the Vice President, the members of the Governing Council or other office bearers whoever they might be. In these circumstances, these young lawyers and all those who brought this situation in not permitting the Courts to function are answerable to the Court system. This has happened all too often at the Allahabad High Court and the situation goes by default without answerability. Thus, let those who have paralysed the proceedings of the Court whether today, or last Friday, or any other day when this strike began on 25th April, 1994 be under notice to explain to the Court why the Court ought not draw proceedings against them for disrupting the Court's functioning. Let them think over this matter so that they have adequate opportunity in offering their defence. Let, neither be in a burry; the Court in seeking their defence nor them in thinking out what their defence will be. For this purpose, let their defence be brought on record of these proceedings on or before 19th July, 1994. The defence of the office bearers of the High Court Bar Association will be submitted through the Secretary of the Bar Association. Those who are mentioned in the various orders of the Court as from today dating back until 25 April, 1994 will receive notices, separately, to be delivered to them by the Registrar, High Court, and to be made available to such persons through the Secretary, High Court Bar Association. Each of those persons under notice may file their defence individually, if they so desire, as it may not be misunderstood that they were not given opportunity for their defence. For considering the defence of those who are under notice, the matter will be listed next on 26 July, 1994. In the circumstances of the atmosphere before the Court today, the Court is constrained to retire to Chambers. Let the Registrar, High Court issue notices to the persons concerned, as are mentioned in this order, of last Friday in the matter of G.K. Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others and each of the orders of the Court dating back to 25 April, 1994, when the strike against the Courts began when on each day the Court had to retire to Chambers. The proceedings on which notices will be issued will carry the cause title Chief Justice and his Companion Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. The President, High Court Bar Association, Allahabad and its office bearers and members. Serve notices as indicated. List as ordered.;