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, December 22, 2024

Allahabad High Court Disapproves Bar Body’s Request To Not Pass Adverse Orders

Posted in: Judiciary
Mon, Nov 11, 24, 11:51, 1 Month ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 12759
Hazi Tahseen Khan vs Gandhi Mohan Saxena has expressed its most strong displeasure over a letter that was circulated by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA) requesting the High Court to not pass any adverse orders in the absence of lawyers who were abstaining from work.

It is most significant to note that while leading from the front, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Hazi Tahseen Khan vs Gandhi Mohan Saxena And Another in S.C.C. Revision No.: - 105 of 2024 that was pronounced as recently as on 07.11.2024 has expressed its most strong displeasure over a letter that was circulated by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA) requesting the High Court to not pass any adverse orders in the absence of lawyers who were abstaining from work. It must be laid bare here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajit Kumar minced just no words to say in no uncertain terms that a letter written by any Bar Association official at the instance of a few lawyers cannot be considered as the general view of the Bar. It must be underscored that the Allahabad High Court was most emphatic in holding that its functioning should generally not be affected due to the absence of some advocates, even more so when their inability to attend court is due to personal reasons, such as religious rituals.

It also must be observed that the Bench was most categorical in holding that in such cases, lawyers should make individual requests for adjournment, which the Court usually accepts. It must be borne in mind that in this leading case, we see that the counsel for the respondents had failed to appear after having remained absent in the last hearing as well. On the other hand, it was noticed by the Bench that the petitioner’s counsel had insisted that the matter be heard urgently.

What cannot go unnoticed in this leading case is that before the Court could proceed with the case for further hearing, the Bench Secretary presented a letter from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association which was signed by its office-bearer requesting that the Court to kindly not issue any adverse orders from November 7-9. What we then saw unfolding was that the Bench then eventually agreed to the request to adjourn the matter but added a caveat saying and making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted to the respondents. It must be certainly also mentioned here that Advocate Satish Chandra Dubey had appeared for the petitioner and Advocates Abhinav Prasad and Mohit Kumar represented the respondents.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Ajit Kumar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para very precisely that:
This case is listed as date fixed matter in which mention has been made by learned counsel for the revision petitioner but the learned counsel for the opposite parties is not present. Even on the last occasion adjournment had been sought on behalf of Sri Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads urgency.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in the next para of this notable judgment stating that:
Before the Court could have proceeded with the hearing of the case, the Bench Secretary placed a letter head of office bearers of Allahabad High Court Bar Association bearing a signature of Honorary Secretary of Allahabad High Court Bar Association Mr. Vikrant Pandey requesting for No Adverse Order on 7th, 8th and 9th November, 2024.

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in the next para of this robust judgment observing that:
In view of above, this Court required Mr. Anil Tiwari, President of High Court, Allahabad Bar Association, Mr. Rajesh Khare, Senior Vice President of Allahabad High Court Bar Association and Mr. Vikrant Pandey, Honorary Secretary of Allahabad High Court Bar Association to show any such resolution adopted by Bar Association or its Executive Body for general circulation for the benches of the High Court not to pass any adverse order in the absence of any counsel.

As we see, the Bench then lays bare in the next para of this cogent judgment noting that:
Neither Mr. Anil Tiwari appeared as is claimed to have not come to the Court, nor Mr. Vikrant Pandey appeared. Mr. Rajesh Khare, Senior Vice President appeared before the Court and upon being asked as to whether any such resolution was adopted by the Bar Association or its Executive Body, he could not say with confidence that any such resolution was adopted either by the general body or executive body of the Association.

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in the next para of this concise judgment lamenting that:
It is unfortunate that constitution law Court's functioning is put on hold without considering importance of public time and public money, besides object to ensure speedy justice delivery system.

Most remarkably, the Bench then expounds in the next para of this remarkable judgment observing succinctly that:
A Bar Association should understand that Courts working is governed under the rules of the Court and vacations/holidays are already scheduled and except for compelling and unavoidable circumstances, like natural calamities, pandemic etc. and but for untoward incidents when Advocates may not attend the Court, entire Courts working should not be generally affected and that too for certain number of Advocates not able to attend the Court for their personal religious rituals to be performed at home. In such a situation individual request for adjournment should be made and in such a case Court may certainly entertain such requests for adjournment.

Most significantly, the Bench minces just no words to state in no uncertain terms to encapsulate in the next para of this pragmatic judgment postulating that:
The convenience of Bar Association in any pressing or any unavoidable circumstances are always respected so as to entertain request for no adverse orders, but for that Bar Association or its Executive Body is expected to pass resolution. Any office bearer if writes letter at the instance of few lawyers, it cannot be said to be general view of the Bar and as counsel for the petitioner has insisted for hearing in this case, it requires, therefore, reasons to be recorded for not hearing case and condoning the absence of counsel for the respondent. The Bar is, therefore, expected to cooperate in the routine functioning of the Court and to ensure that administration of justice is not adversely affected otherwise the justice delivery system would crumble.

It is worth noting that in addition, the Bench then further directs in the next para of this progressive judgment noting that:
It is expected that in future whenever Bar Association wants such letters to be circulated to the benches of the High Court seeking no adverse orders, it is always supported by resolution to be adopted by the Bar Association in general and in exceptional circumstances by its Executive Body.

Going ahead, the Bench then further stipulates in the next para of this commendable judgment directing that:
It is expected that in future whenever Bar Association wants such letters to be circulated to the benches of the High Court seeking no adverse orders, it is always supported by resolution to be adopted by the Bar Association in general and in exceptional circumstances by its Executive Body.

What’s more, we see then that the Bench further also stipulates in the next para of this pertinent judgment propounding that:
In the interest of justice, the Court is adjourning matter with the condition that on the next date, no further adjournment will be granted to the respondent.

Not stopping here and adding still more, we see that the Bench then directs in the next para of this refreshing judgment that:
Put up this matter peremptorily on 19.11.2024 on the top of the Board.

Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by holding and directing in the concluding para that:
Let a copy of this order be sent to Allahabad High Court Bar Association.

Having elaborated exhaustively on this notable judgment, I must add most politely that Allahabad High Court also must definitely take suo motu cognizance and also most promptly set up Special Investigation Team (SIT) when lawyers are lathicharged most brutally as was seen most recently on October 29 right inside the court premises in Ghaziabad which sent shockwaves all across the country with lawyers of many States going on strike against the unprecedented, unprovoked and unexplained lathicharge at the behest of the District Judge of Ghaziabad - Mr Anil Kumar which we don’t see happening even after so many days! Why we see no action on this count due to which lawyers of district court especially in West UP have been on strike for so many days? There was huge resentment even among lawyers of Allahabad High Court over this most ruthless lathicharge on lawyers of Ghaziabad Bar with even chairs being thrown on them by police which is something totally unheard of in the past!

I would again like to reiterate with due respect to Allahabad High Court that it is an undeniable fact that if lawyers go on strike, it hurts them most as it is their own bread and butter that gets affected most because of going on strike which Judges usually fail to comprehend! There are most valid reasons due to which lawyers go on strike like lawyers of West UP have gone on strike for 6 months in 2014-15 and also in 2001 demanding High Court Bench in West UP as was recommended even by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself and on whose recommendation we saw Maharashtra getting one more High Court Bench which already had High Court Bench in Nagpur and Panaji and so also at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal which already had a Bench at Port Blair but for UP 3 Benches recommended nearly 50 years ago yet not one created including one permanent Bench for West UP as litigants have to travel whole night and half day all the way till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest betrayal of Constitution and justice as majority of pending cases of Uttar Pradesh are also from West UP as was acknowledged by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission!

How long will Centre keep rubbishing the most legitimate and most compelling demand for a High Court Bench in West UP and keep inventing most ludicrous grounds to most strongly oppose the creation of even a single High Court Bench in any nook and corner of Uttar Pradesh other than the one created 76 years ago at Lucknow so close to Allahabad and nowhere else and worst of all attached litigants of West UP with not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad to seek justice which makes just no sense at all! To further dramatise, we see Centre says that we have no problem with Bench in West UP but sanction of Governor needed most cunningly ignoring that Governor cannot be above Constitution and Article 14 which envisages equality!

Dr BR Ambedkar recommended separate Statehood for Western UP yet has not even a Bench with more than 10 crores population! I really just can’t decipher that why the hell Centre has abdicated its most sacred job of ensuring that the litigants of 30 districts of West UP get justice at doorsteps by creating a High Court Bench in any of these districts which has more than 10 crores people even though States like Karnataka with just 6 crore population has High Court and multiple Benches! What is most distressing to note is that neither Allahabad High Court nor even the Supreme Court ever cares to rise and take suo motu cognizance on such a serious matter even though it is quick many times to take suo motu cognizance of cheating even in a Mayor election as we saw some time back in Chandigarh in which Supreme Court directly took action!

With folded hands, it is my humble request both to Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court to remember that it is Uttar Pradesh which is the most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases and still has just one Bench and that so close to Allahabad at Lucknow even though West UP owes for majority of pending cases of UP due to which lawyers of West UP have been going on strike every Saturday since last 43 years not for just sake of fun apart from so many other strikes! Why we see no damage control exercise done by either Allahabad High Court or Apex Court on this?

It is West UP which owes for maximum number of pending cases among all the regions of not just UP but all over India which can be ascertained independently as was acknowledged even by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission due to which it recommended permanent Bench but not created neither two Benches for hilly areas of undivided UP due to which people agitated and Uttarakhand became separate State on November 9, 2000!

Why Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court never takes suo motu cognizance on this and resolves it as Centre has done absolutely nothing except inventing lame excuses is for them to answer and introspect most honestly on this just like it wants lawyers to not go on strike too very often! I fervently hope that my humble opinion would be definitely taken in the correct spirit and ostensibly not otherwise as I hold the courts more sacred than any religious site anywhere in world!

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