The Allahabad High Court recently took a poor view of Bar members abstaining from judicial work, and stated that a bar association is not established to obstruct the court’s functioning and interfere with discharge of its sovereign functions [Rajani v Vipul Mittal].
Justice JJ Munir was critical of the conduct of the Bar abstaining from work, stating in his order,
“This conduct of the Bar is not only reprehensible, but also downright illegal. The Bar Association is, after all, a registered society and cannot hold up the functioning of a Sovereign Court by their resolutions. Whatever they do, they do it at the peril of the litigants whose interest their Members represent…”
The observation was made during the hearing of a challenge to a trial court order which had refused to recall its order in a partition suit. The trial court had passed the order since the defendant was attempting to delay the suit. The revisional court had also upheld the the trial court’s orders.
The High Court expressed its dissatisfaction on finding that the case was adjourned several times on account of members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work for varied reasons.
Shocked that the working of the Court came to a grinding halt because of ongoing Bar elections, the Court said that associations should not interfere with the discharge of a court’s sovereign functions.
“It is beyond imagination that the work of a Court would be brought to a grinding halt, because the elections of a registered society are to be held,” the Court said.
It was stated that though members of the Bar were superior officers of the Court, the bar association was no more than a registered society established for the welfare of its members, and to positively contribute to the functioning of its individual members.
After looking into the order sheet in the present case, the judge remarked that there had been determined efforts to delay the trial of the suit, and that the defendant had been given enough opportunity by the trial court.
Therefore, it was found that the trial court was right in passing the order under challenge and the plea was dismissed.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Anil Kumar Aditya and Radhey Shyam Dwivedi while the respondent was represented by Advocates Shreya Gupta and Ravi Anand Agarwal.