Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Sunday, January 12, 2025

Bench And Bar Are Two Wheels Of Chariot Of Justice, No One Superior To The Other: J&K&L HC

Posted in: Judiciary
Tue, Aug 23, 22, 17:09, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 6298
Latief Ahmad Rather V/s Shafeeqa Bhatthat the advocates are the officers of the Court and deserve the same respect and dignity as is being given to the Judicial Officers and Presiding Officers of the Courts.

While taking the most dignified, disciplined and determined stand, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has in a most commendable, cogent, composed and creditworthy judgment titled Latief Ahmad Rather V/s Shafeeqa Bhat in CRM (M) No. 94/2022 CrlM No. 327/2022 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 104 pronounced on April 8, 2022 minced just no words to make it crystal clear that the advocates are the officers of the Court and deserve the same respect and dignity as is being given to the Judicial Officers and Presiding Officers of the Courts.

What is most remarkable is that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Dhar has minced absolutely no words to elegantly, eloquently and effectively hold that, “Bench and Bar are two wheels of the chariot of justice. Both are equal and no one is superior to the other. The members of the Bar, as such, deserve the utmost respect and dignity.” It is worth emulating by all the Courts in India including the Supreme Court where we even witnessed none other than one of the most eminent and senior lawyer – Kapil Sibal among others just recently expressing his total disenchantment with the Apex Court way of functioning which just cannot be lightly brushed aside as he has more than 50 years of most distinguished experience as is acknowledged even by his worst critics.

The Bench must definitely take most seriously when senior and eminent lawyers like Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave among other eminent and senior lawyers point out the glaring deficiencies in the working of the Apex Court and same is the case with High Courts and other lower courts also! It also definitely merits no reiteration that only when Bench and Bar work in tandem and resolving all their differences most amicably that the judiciary can really function effectively as a torchbearer of justice in whom the common person holds maximum faith!

At the outset, this most laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Dhar sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioners have challenged order dated 09.03.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby transfer application filed by the petitioners for transfer of case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, titled Lateef Ahmad Rather and Ors vs. Shafeeka Bhat, from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in District Srinagar, has been declined.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “It is averred in the petition that the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, filed by the respondent against the petitioners herein, is absolutely false and frivolous and when the petitioners approached the trial Magistrate for modification of the order passed by it, the said application was not decided despite a number of requests having been made by the petitioners to the learned trial Magistrate. It is further averred that the remarks of the trial Magistrate against the petitioners have not been in good taste being abusive in nature, which compelled them to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar with an application for transfer of the case from the Court of trial Magistrate to any other court of competent jurisdiction. It is contended that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, vide the impugned order, rejected the prayer of the petitioners without understanding the gravity of the matter.”

Needless to say, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “I have learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and the documents annexed to the petition.”

As it turned out, the Bench then lays bare in para 4 that, “It appears that the main grouse of the petitioners is that their application for modification or vacation of order dated 08.11.2021, passed by the learned trial Magistrate in ex-parte against the petitioners, is not being considered on its merits expeditiously. It also appears that there has been some exchange of harsh words between the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Magistrate, which has forced the petitioners to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar seeking transfer of proceedings from the Court of trial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, has vide the impugned order rightly declined to transfer the proceedings from the Court of learned trial Magistrate, but, while doing so, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has made certain sweeping remarks against the advocates by stating that the advocates level unnecessary allegations against the Judicial Officers in order to facilitate their personal convenience.”

It is a no-brainer that the Bench then very rightly observes in para 5 that, “There can be no doubt, that the grounds urged by the petitioners, seeking transfer of their case from the Court of trial Magistrate to any other Court of competent jurisdiction, are not cogent. Merely because the learned Magistrate has failed to dispose of the application of the petitioners, is not a ground to transfer the case. It is also not a ground for transfer of a case if there is exchange of some hot words between the Court and the counsel. Thus the decision of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar to decline the transfer of the matter from the trial Magistrate, is legally correct and cannot be interfered with.”

Most significantly and also most commendably, the Bench then while adding a rider minces absolutely no words to mandate in para 6 that, “However, the sweeping remarks that have been made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, were uncalled for and unnecessary for the decision of the case. There may be stray incidents where the advocates have resorted to levelling of allegations against the Judicial Officers in order to seek transfer of their cases from one Court to other to suit their convenience, but then this cannot be generalized. The advocates are the officers of the Court and deserve the same respect and dignity as is being given to the Judicial Officers and Presiding Officers of the Courts. Bench and Bar are two wheels of the chariot of justice. Both are equal and no one is superior to the other. The members of the Bar, as such, deserve the utmost respect and dignity There may be some rotten apples in the profession, as is true of every profession, but to say that the advocates generally adopt these tactics is not the correct position. The remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as such, deserve to be expunged.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by decisively holding in the final para 7 that, “Accordingly, while upholding the order declining to transfer the case passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, the remarks made by the learned Magistrate against the advocates are expunged and it is directed that the same shall not form part of the impugned order. A further direction is issued to the learned trial Magistrate to dispose of the application of the petitioners for modification of order dated 08.11.2021 expeditiously, preferably within a period of 15 days from the date a copy of this order is made available to the said Court. Copies of this order be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and Judicial Magistrate (2nd Additional Munsiff) Srinagar.”

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Dhar has made it indubitably clear that, “Bench and Bar are two wheels of the chariot of justice. Both are equal and no one is superior to the other. The members of the Bar, as such, deserve the utmost respect and dignity.” If this is actually ensured on ground then there is no reason why lawyers will go on strike protesting against judicial officers misbehaving with them! There can be just no denying or disputing it!

To top it all, it is also certainly most heartening to note that the newly designated Chief Justice of India – Hon’ble Mr Justice UU Lalit who will take oath as 49th CJI on August 27, 2022 has made it indubitably clear that he will always certainly take the Bar also along with him in ensuring diligently that things actually work most smoothly in the top court and also the genuine grievances of senior lawyers are addressed most effectively so that there is nothing left to complain about! This is definitely the crying need of the hour also!

No doubt, all the Judges in India must pay heed to what Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Dhar has said about advocates being accorded utmost respect just as is accorded to the judicial officers and the presiding officers of the Courts and comply with accordingly. Only then can our courts really function smoothly and serve the real purpose for which the courts are actually meant – serve justice within the shortest possible time without compromising in anyway with the quality of justice so that the litigants gain the most for whom the courts are actually meant! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top