Allahabad High Court : Professional Misconduct Of A lawyer May Also Amount To Contempt Notice To Office Bearers Of Bar Association For Calling Frequent Strikes

Very recent the Allahabad High Court has observed that professional misconduct of a lawyer may also amount to contempt of court. 

The Bench of Justice Alok Mathur noted that the order-sheet clearly indicates that one of the main reasons for not conclusion of the proceedings is the strike called for by the Bar Association and despite the order passed by this Court, the cases could not be decided.

Observing aforesaid, the Court issued contempt notices following office bearers of the Local Bar Association, Aalapur, Ambedkar Nagar. 

1. Sri Ram Prakash Tiwari, President, Bar Association, Tehsil – Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
2. Sri Krishna Gopal Mishra, Ex-President, Bar Association, Tehsil – Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 
3. Sri Yogendra Yadav, Secretary, President, Bar Association, Tehsil – Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 

Notice has been issued to show cause through counsel as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for frequently calling for strikes of the bar association due to which the judicial work of the revenue courts is affected which is amount to willful disobedience of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Case, Hussain Case, District Bar Association Dehradun Case as well as direction of the Court vide order 05.07.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 13607 (MS) of 2021.

In this case by means of order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 13607 (MS) of 2021, the High Court while disposing of the writ petition had directed the Tehsidarl, Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar to make earnest endeavour to decide the case expeditiously. However on most of the dates, the proceedings could not take place on account of strike of the Local Bar Association and hence the present contempt petition has been filed against the authorities for not complying with the order of the writ court.

Court No. – 18

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1008 of 2022

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar And Another

Opposite Party :- Sri Dewa Nand Tiwari, Nayab Tehsildar, Ambedkar Nagar Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Kumar Shukla

Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Shukla, as well as Sri G.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. By means of order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 13607 (MS) of 2021, this court while disposing of the writ petition had directed the Tehsidarl, Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar to make earnest endeavour to decide the case expeditiously.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has annexed a copy of order-sheet of the proceedings of the Case No. 04060/2018 under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code. According to which on most of the dates, the proceedings could not take place on account of strike of the Local Bar Association and hence the present contempt petition has been filed against the authorities for not complying with the order of the writ court.
4. It is submitted that frequent call of strikes by the bar association is in gross violation of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in 2017 (5) SCC 702 as well as of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. Naib Tehsildar, and Ors., Misc. Single No. 23446 of 2019.
5. It is also stated that the poor litigants whose cases are pending before the revenue courts for a very long time having no other remedy approached this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to seek direction for expeditious disposal of the cases like the mutation, partition for which time period has also been specially prescribed under the various laws including the U.P. Revenue Code extending from 90 days to six months etc. Much after expiry of prescribed time when the cases are not decided, they approached this Court seeking a suitable direction to the concerned authorities to decide their cases expeditiously. Like in the present case, the writ court has directed the S.D.M. concerned to decide the case under Section 12 of U.P. Panchayati Raj Act within the stipulated period which has been fixed as six months by the order of the Court.The cases remain pending as the call for boycott from judicial work by local Bar Association is very frequent, and no judicial work is carried out during that day.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2020 passed in District Bar Association, Deharadun through its Secretary Vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors, Special Leave petition (Civil ) No. 5440 of 2020, has held as under:- "35. 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. ........................ It is held that lawyers holding vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly 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"
7. The order-sheet clearly indicates that one of the main reasons for not conclusion of the proceedings is the strike called for by the Bar Association and despite the order passed by this Court, the cases could not be decided.
8. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has informed following office bearers of the Local Bar Association, Aalapur, Ambedkar Nagar. (i) Sri Ram Prakash Tiwari, President, Bar Association, Tehsil - Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar. (ii) Sri Krishna Gopal Mishra, Ex-President, Bar Association, Tehsil - Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar. (iii) Sri Yogendra Yadav, Secretary, President, Bar Association, Tehsil - Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
9. Accordingly, learned counsel for applicant is directed to implead the aforesaid office bearers forthwith.
10. In view of the above, professional misconduct of a lawyer may also amount to contempt of court.
11. Accordingly, issue notice to newly added respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to show cause through counsel as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for frequently calling for strikes of the bar association due to which the judicial work of the revenue courts is affected which is amount to willful disobedience of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra), Hussain (Supra), District Bar Association Dehradun (Supra) as well as direction of the Court vide order 05.07.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 13607 (MS) of 2021.
12. Learned counsel for applicant shall take steps within one week.
13. List this case on 29.07.2022.
14. On the said date, newly added respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall appear in person before this Court.

                                                                                                                                   (Alok Mathur, J.)