BELA M.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) (A) Is the High Court, which is in loco parentis of the subordinate courts and the guardian of the rule of law, expected to be a silent spectator, where the dignity, security and the morale of the subordinate courts i.e. the backbone of the judiciary are put to stake, and when the very foundation of the judiciary i.e. the trust and faith of the people is sought to be shaken by a fraction of lawyers? (B) Should a losing litigant, who is a lawyer by profession, be permitted to interfere with the judicial proceedings and to create an atmosphere of fear and pressure in the court room, and humiliate or browbeat the Judge, showing the strength and support of the President of the Bar Association and other lawyers, in order to get the desired orders from the court? (C) Do the lawyers enjoy any immunity from undergoing the normal process of law, required to be followed by the other ordinary litigants?
(2.) THESE are some of the issues which have cropped up since last one week, and which have constrained and prompted this court to initiate these suo moto proceedings in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). At the outset it may be stated that due to call of strike given by the Bar Associations at the District Court, Jaipur and the High Court, the judicial work in all courts at Jaipur, including at the High Court and many other courts outside the Jaipur, has been hampered and paralysed since last one week, merely because the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur passed an adverse order against Shri Bharat Bhushan Pareek in his personal matter of eviction on 7.7.14. The array of incidents as brought to the notice of this court and stated in the copies of the orders passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Shri Mahendra Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as 'the concerned Judge') and also stated in the representations made by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Association, Jaipur, Rajasthan Nyayik Karamchari Sangh and others, as also reported in the daily newspapers, may be stated as under : - 3(i) On 5.7.14, the concerned Judge passed the detailed order after hearing both the parties, issuing possession warrant against the judgment debtor Shri Bharat Bhushan Pareek, who is also a lawyer by profession, on he having failed to comply with the order passed by the High Court in the SB Civil First Appeal being No. 453/03 (pending before this court), arising out of the decree of eviction dated 25.7.03. The said warrant was made returnable on 4.8.14. 3(ii) On 7.7.14, the judgment debtor Shri Pareek submitted an application seeking stay against the possession warrant issued by the court on 5.7.14. On the said application, the concerned Judge issued notice to the decree -holder and fixed the matter on 18.7.14. It appears that the judgment debtor Mr. Pareek again submitted another application for expediting the hearing of his application. The concerned Judge ordered to keep the said application alongwith the execution proceedings fixed on 4.8.14. 3(iii) After passing of the said orders, when the concerned Judge was dictating the order to his stenographer in some other matter, the judgment debtor Shri Bharat Bhushan Pareek alongwith other members of the Bar including Shri Gopesh Gumbaj, the President of the Bar, Shri Balraj Choudhary, former Secretary of the Bar and Shri Balram Jhakhar started shouting that the possession warrant was wrongly issued and that he (the Judge) was biased. Mr. Pareek also appears to have stated that he wanted to approach the Supreme Court by filing the SLP and, therefore, the proceedings be stayed. The other members of the Bar present in the Court also started shouting that the matter being of the advocate "Shri Pareek", some time be granted. Since the judgment debtor Shri Pareek was threatening and browbeating the court with the support of the other members of the Bar, and they all were interfering with the course of judicial proceedings, the concerned Judge passed the following order: - "07.07.14 XXX XXX XXX" 3(iv) On 8.7.14, the lawyers had abstained themselves from work in all courts due to call of strike given by the Bar Associations. 3(v) On 9.7.14 as transpiring from the copies of representations made by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Association, Rajasthan Nyayik Karamchari Sangh and from the letters written by the Senior Reader of Court No. 13, Shri Rajesh Mathur as also the letter written by the Assistant Nazir addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, a big crowd of lawyers came to the Court Room No. 13 at about 10.45 A.M. and started shouting slogans against the concerned Judge in abusive language. They also forced the staff members of the said court and other courts to leave the court rooms and tried to damage the furniture of the court rooms. On having succeeded in forcing the staff members to leave the court rooms, they latched the doors of the court rooms from outside. They also compelled the other Judges who were sitting on the Dias of the other court rooms to retire in the Chambers, and kept on ransacking the courts and threatening and abusing the Judges and the staff members.
(3.) THE said incident was also reported in the newspapers. The copies of the orders, representations, letters and the clippings of the newspapers are on record and shall be treated as part of these proceedings. It is pertinent to note that in support of the aforesaid incident, the Bar Associations of the courts at Jaipur including of the High Court have given the call of strike and boycott the courts till the concerned Judge is transferred to some other court by the High Court.;