Bar Assoc. Resolution To Not Appear In Criminal Cases Involving Lawyers Is Unconstitutional, Against Professional Advocacy Ethics: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court today held that a resolution passed by the Bar Associations that none of its members will do pairvi in any criminal case against a member Advocate or his family members is not only un-constitutional, against the ethics of professional advocacy as well as against the concept of Articles 14, 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Bench of Justice Mohd....
The Allahabad High Court today held that a resolution passed by the Bar Associations that none of its members will do pairvi in any criminal case against a member Advocate or his family members is not only un-constitutional, against the ethics of professional advocacy as well as against the concept of Articles 14, 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed thus:
"…such resolutions are not only unconstitutional, against the ethics of professional advocacy as well as against the concept of Article 14, 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In the considered opinion of this Court equal opportunity to secure justice could not be denied to any citizen of this country."
The Court was hearing an application moved by an applicant Mohammad Ahmad Khan with a prayer to transfer the proceedings of a criminal case pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, District Balrampur to the Sessions Division District Bahraich or Ambedkar Nagar or Ayodhya.
This application was moved on the ground that three brothers of opposite party no.2, as well as their father are Advocates and are practising in outlying court Utraula and Balrampur judgeship.
Significantly, it was argued that the Advocates of Bar Association Utraula had passed two resolutions (now withdrawn) wherein it was resolved that no Advocate shall appear or will file any proceedings of the criminal nature against the member of that bar or their families.
Therefore, it was argued that having regard to the fact that close relatives of opposite party no.2 are practising Advocates at the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, the instant case be transferred to the other districts.
Report sought by the High Court
Hearing the instant case, the Court had, on June 29 directed the District and Sessions Judge, Balrampur to submit a report with regard to the two resolutions in question passed by the Bar Association, Utraula.
Pursuant to this, the District Judge, Balrampur sent a report by concluding that such resolutions were passed earlier by the Bar Association, Utraula on April 6, 2016 and September 11, 2018, however subsequently in the general body meeting of the Bar Association held on November 2, 2018, both these resolutions were cancelled.
It is also stated in the communication that the then President, Bar Association has also tendered his apology for passing such resolutions.
Court's order and observations
Noting that the resolutions have been withdrawn/cancelled, the High Court observed that it could not lose sight of the fact that earlier two resolutions before were passed by the Bar Association, Utraula, whereby it was resolved that no member of the Bar Association Utraula will do pairvi in any criminal case against a member Advocate or his family members.
Thus, the Court opined that there was no harm if in the facts and circumstances of the case be transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, who naturally is the senior-most Magistrate in the District Judgeship.
The Court also observed that no harm in this process would be caused to either party as both the parties to the lis are residing at Utraula, which is hardly 50 Kms. away from Balrampur.
Therefore, the application was disposed of with a direction that the Criminal case be transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur.
CJM, Balrampur has been directed to proceed and dispose of the case expeditiously, without granting soft adjournment to the either party in accordance with law.
Case title - Mohammad Ahmad Khan v. State Of U.P. & Another
Read Order