- (1.) CONTROL , administration and separation of the district judiciary is a constitutional obligation of the High Courts.
(2.) IN the recent past, there has been spurt of incidents resulting in the obstruction and derailment of work both in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and in the District Courts across the State. These incidents have a direct impact on the functioning of the judiciary and the ability of the institution to efficiently discharge its constitutional obligation of rendering justice to litigants. Apart from the dislocation of work in the District Courts and in the High Court, a series of incidents has come to light where the security of the District Courts has been seriously compromised. Courts across the State are visited each day by thousands of lawyers, litigants and by the members of the public. Officials of the State come to Court in the discharge of their official duties. The safety of all these stakeholders and of the staff and judges of the Court are of paramount concern. In view of the supervening circumstances and having due regard to the gravity of the situation in the state in the past several months, we have considered it appropriate to take recourse to the suo motu jurisdiction of this Court in the public interest so that the entire matter can be considered in a holistic perspective and appropriate directions can be issued.
(3.) AT the outset, it would be necessary to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex -Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another : AIR 2003 SC 739, decided on 17 December 2002. The law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court is summarized in the following extract from the decision: "In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay facts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot attend Courts in pursuance to a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must bodily refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocate decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be in addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him." The judgment of the Supreme Court has been flouted by the associations representing the lawyers. Even the restriction that strikes should not be resorted to, even in an exceptional matter, for a period in excess of one day, is observed in the breach. One day strikes are extended from day to day, almost indefinitely.;