Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Lawyers' Strike Over Peer's Murder, Condemns Bar For Obstructing AG's Entry

The division bench of the Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vijay Bishnoi said call of strike and abstention from work by anyone including the office bearers of any of the Bar Association is not in accordance with the law and is in violation of the Supreme Court orders passed from time to time.

The bench also condemned the Bar Associations for obstructing the entry of Advocate General, who was appearing in the matter.

“We reiterate that any attempt made to obstruct any lawyer or litigant from entering the Court and appearing in the Court to argue the matter shall be viewed strictly and they shall be treated as an act of obstruction in the administration of justice and suitable action would be initiated against such persons,” it cautioned.

Advocate General for State, M.S. Singhvi, submitted that the strike and abstention from work is against Supreme Court's judgement in Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 45. He also informed the Court of a threatening letter by the office bearer of the Bar Association, stating that he is not cooperating in the agitation.

This indeed is a serious matter, the bench remarked, directing that the alleged letter be placed on court record. "Necessary directions are required to be issued," it said.

Suresh Chandra Shrimali, member of State Bar Council submitted that lawyers are agitating because there is a serious issue of protection, especially in the view of the incident. Additional Solicitor General, R.D. Rastogi suggested that attempts must be made to resolve the issue by deliberation and discussion among various stakeholders.

Accordingly, the Court has asked the Advocate General, Additional Solicitor General, representative of Bar Council of State to Bar Council of India, Representatives of Bar Council of Rajasthan and members of Bar Council of India to sit together and try to resolve the issue.

"This Court is concerned with the recourse taken to in support of the demands. While there are permissible ways and means to persuade various demands that have been made by the Associations and the Members of the Bar collectively and individually, certainly, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, abstention from work is not one of the ways of doing it," it said while listing the matter for March 2.

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan

Coram: The Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Click Here to Read/Download Order