"Will Take Appropriate Measures Regarding Uncalled For Strikes By Bar Associations": UP Bar Council Assures Allahabad High Court

The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has assured the Allahabad High Court that it shall take appropriate measures to ensure that frequency of the strike calls, boycott calls, and resolutions regarding abstinence from active work in the court is arrested.

The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was being represented before the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi to assist the court in the suo moto matter regarding the non-availability or paucity of Presiding Officers in the Revenue courts.

In response to the submission made by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the Court expressed its genuine hope and trust that for evolving appropriate measures to check the frequency of uncalled for strikes by the Members of the Bar Associations, the Members of the Bar Council shall sit together and come forward with some concrete mechanism.

Further, the court requested Advocate Subhash Chandra Pandey (representing the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh) to be present on each and every hearing of this case.

He was also requested to apprise the Court by the next date of hearing of this case as to the steps which, in the meantime, might be taken by the Bar Council for addressing the issues as deliberated today in the Court.

Now, regarding the issue of non-availability of Presiding Officers in the revenue courts in the State of U.P., the High Court observed that the same was to be addressed by the State and for that purpose, the Court will pass separate directions and orders which may be called for looking to the circumstances.

Further, the Court directed the State Government to file an affidavit giving up-to-date information regarding the following facts:-

(1) As compared to the number of districts how many Additional District Magistrates (Judicial) are presently working, how many posts of Additional District Magistrates (Judicial) have been sanctioned and what efforts have been/are being made to fill up the rest of the vacancies against the posts of Additional District Magistrates (Judicial).

(2) Similarly, as against the number of Tehsils in the State of U.P., how many posts of Sub-Divisional Officers (Judicial) and those of Tehsildars (Judicial) have been sanctioned, and out of a total number of such sanctioned posts, how many SubDivisional Officers (Judicial) and Tehsildars (Judicial) are presently working.

(3) The affidavit to be filed under this order shall also indicate as to what efforts have been made/are being made to fill up the rest of the vacancies for posting the Sub-Divisional Officers(Judicial) and Tehsildars (Judicial) in each Tehsil. The affidavit to be filed under this order shall also indicate as to whether the Additional District Magistrates (Judicial), SubDivisional Officers (Judicial), and Tehsildars (Judicial) are entrusted only with discharging judicial work or in addition to their judicial work, they are assigned any other duties in their respective areas.

(4) The affidavit shall also indicate as to what steps have been taken at the level of State Government as also at the level of Divisional Commissioners and the District Magistrates to ensure that officers entrusted with discharge of judicial work sit in their courts throughout the working hours on every day. The State Government shall also indicate in the affidavit as to whether there is any mechanism available/evolved to ensure that judicial function by the officers entrusted with the judicial work is discharged during the course of full working hours. If there no such mechanism is available, the State Government shall evolve such a mechanism and enforce the same, details of which shall also be provided in the affidavit to be filed under this order.

With this, the Court directed the case to be listed on May 26, 2022