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