Allahabad HC Questions Bar Association's Resolution To Cancel Membership Of Lawyers Pursuing Personal Matters Against Fellow Advocates

A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra issued notice to the President of the Bar Association, Etah, asking for an affidavit clarifying which law empowers a Bar Association to prevent a litigant from engaging a counsel simply because their opponent is a practising advocate in the same court.

“If this Court is not convinced by the explanation offered, it may take suitable action against the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association and may treat the resolution, if any, as an instrument creating obstruction in administration of justice,” the Court remarked in its order.

The court was hearing an application filed by Saurabh Dwivedi seeking the transfer of proceedings under Section 7/10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, or any other court having jurisdiction.

One of the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel is that the dispute concerns the custody of a minor child, and the opposite party, a practising advocate in the District Court of Etah, is influencing the police authorities. As a result, the order passed by the High Court in the habeas corpus petition, granting the applicant visiting rights to his child, is not being complied with.

It was also argued that, due to the Bar Association's resolution, the applicant is unable to engage a lawyer in District Etah and faces all other difficulties in pursuing the matter there.

In view of this, asking the Bar Association's President to file an affidavit as aforesaid, the Court also issued notice to the opposite party and granted him four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Further, the court stayed the case proceedings until the next date of listing.

The matter is to be listed in February 2025 before the appropriate Bench.