Bar Associations Should Desist From Taking Such Reckless & Irresponsible Decisions: BCI On P&H Bar Council's Resolution Seeking Transfer Of Chief Justice

The sub-committee has also restored the membership of Advocate General Atul Nanda, who was caught in the cross fire and dismembered by the Bar Association in February this year.

In doing so, it remarked,

"The differences and dissatisfaction are bound to occur in every institution. But, the issues can be resolved amicably through talks and discussions; And if an issue is not resolved at the level of any Bar Association, the matter should be reported to the concerned State Bar Council. There is no reason that the persons sitting at the top of the system will not listen to the cause of the Advocates and will not fix a time for meeting with the representatives of the Bar and/or will not consider the genuine concerns of the Bar. Such guidelines are to be followed by all the Bar Associations."

Background

In February 20201, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association had passed a resolution seeking transfer of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha, citing continuous closure of the High Court and consequent denial of justice.

Through the said resolution, the Association had also removed Advocate General Atul Nanda as a member for allegedly acting against the interest of the Bar and working against physical hearings.

The said resolution was stayed by the State Bar Council as arbitrary and in violation of Rule-10 and 11 of the Rules of High Court Bar Association.

Subsequently, on May 7, the Association once again passed a resolution for transfer of Justice Jha, alleging that he has not co-operated with the Bar and has taken least interest in the problems faced by the general public.

The said resolution was also stayed by the State Bar Council as "wholly unjustified and uncalled for".

Thereafter, the Bar Association approached the Bar Council of India by filing a revision-cum-stay petition against the order of stay passed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

Findings

The sub-committee of BCI said that in this period of crisis, all the stakeholders of the legal institution should stand united, have free flowing channels of communication so that the dignity of the institution as a whole, is maintained.

It noted that steps had already been taken on the administrative side of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to optimize the working of Courts through Video Conferencing.

It further noted that the High Court has already allowed Anticipatory Bails, Habeas Corpus Petitions and Protection matters to be listed without mentioning and an assurance was given to the Association to consider feasible demands made by it.

The Committee while appreciating the above noted steps suggested that as and when the situation in relation to COVID-19 eases out, there shall be further deliberations between the Chief Justice and the President/ Hony Secretary of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association so that measures feasible and suitable can be taken.

The Committee also mentioned about the Resolution passed by the High Court Bar Association in February and said,

"Such resolutions to remove the membership of any Advocate from any Bar Association in such manner is not only mala-fide, but, may also invite disciplinary action against the office bearers."

It noted that on many occasions Mr. Atul Nanda, Advocate General, Punjab had publicly expressed his support for physical hearing of the Court and had also given his written consent for resumption of physical hearings before the Administrative Committee of the High Court.

Thus, in the opinion of the Bar Council of India, Mr. Atul Nanda, Advocate General, Punjab has always played a very exemplary and appreciable role.

"He is a seasoned Senior Advocate. Such persons are infact pride of any Bar Association. The membership of Mr. Atul Nanda is hereby restored. He shall continue to be the Member of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association," the BCI sub-committee said.

It added that a bare perusal of the February resolution makes it amply clear that such resolutions have no leg to stand on, rather, the Bar Association should desist from taking such reckless and irresponsible decisions.

"Unless there are strong compelling circumstances any Bar Association cannot lay any undue pressure on any of its Member/s to do a particular thing against his wishes," it said.

The matter was closed on noting that the Association has itself withdrawn its Resolutions and that nothing in the dispute remains pending.

Click Here To Download Resolution

Read Resolution