Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Woman Lawyer's Plea Alleging Harassment By District Bar Association In Bengal’s Kakdwip

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the lawyer against the Calcutta High Court refusing to transfer a suit filed by her in a local court in Kakdwip for declaration and injunction to itself or to another court.

Advocate Shiv Shankar Banerjee, appearing for the lawyer being allegedly persecuted, told the court that the origin of the conflict between her and the bar association lay in her undergoing training as a mediator at the West Bengal Judicial Academy. The bar association asked the woman to resign from the post of a mediator so that “she was not the only one receiving a mediator’s fee”. When she refused to resign, Banerjee told the bench, a show cause notice was issued against her by the bar association, accusing her of assaulting three men. The counsel argued:

“She is not allowed to earn a living because she is thrown out of the court premises. She is not allowed representation and has to fight her own case. Not just the facilities of the bar association, the woman is not allowed to use a public toilet within the court compound. The court has its own infrastructure, but she is not allowed to sit in the visitor’s area and work. The entire bar association has turned against one woman. It is an unregistered body and there is no complaint cell. It is not possible for her to fight against an entire bar association. Her only prayer before the high court was to transfer the matter to any district, any sub-division.”

In response to a query from the bench about an eleven months’ delay in filing the appeal in the top court, the counsel explained that it took the woman lawyer time to find someone to represent her. “I took this matter up when it reached my chamber. This is a pro bono matter.” He also added that a woman lawyer allegedly being subjected to such harassment served as a disincentive to other women in the area wishing to practise in the concerned court.

“What has happened in the meantime?” Justice Roy asked the counsel.

Banerjee replied, “There has been no progress. The court has adjourned the hearing on multiple occasions.”

Persuaded by the petitioner’s contention, the bench pronounced:

“…She has filed [a suit in 2019] against the Kakdwip Court Bar Association and their office-bearers challenging the show cause notice and the proposed action. Feeling the vitiated pressure in the courts in Kakdwip, where even toilet and other common facilities were denied to the petitioner, she moved an application of transfer of proceedings to any court outside of Kakdwip court. However, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by pointing out that the petitioner is unlikely to suffer any prejudice there. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no progress has been made in the suit and even written statements are yet to be filed by the defendants. In the meantime, the petitioner is being persecuted on a daily basis by her colleagues. Issue notice returnable in four weeks.”

After dictating the order, Justice Roy, however, urged the petitioner to… “Mr Banerjee, please advise your client to read Fali Nariman’s book where he talks about maintaining good relationships with colleagues at the Bar. The petitioner, as a lawyer, will spend most part of her waking hours around her colleagues. If she has a bad atmosphere and relationship with colleagues, her life will be miserable. There should be every effort to not be adamant but have a reconciliatory approach.”

“Only three or four women advocates are suffering there,” Banerjee replied, “Otherwise, the men are very united.”

“Whether you are a man or a woman, you would want a harmonious atmosphere in your workplace. Please advise your client,” the judge retorted.

Background

The petitioner – one Bina Das – has accused the Bar Association of Kakdwip Sub-Divisional Civil and Criminal Court of arbitrarily terminating her membership for refusing to resign from the post of a mediator, and targeting her for her decision. The allegation is that the woman lawyer is not being allowed to sit inside the court premises or enjoy any of the common facilities available there, including a public toilet. In many direct and indirect ways, she is being deprived of a livelihood at the behest of the bar association and its office-bearers, the petitioner has submitted.

The special leave petition (SLP) has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to transfer to itself or to any other court, the litigation pending before the local court in Kakdwip. In support of this prayer, the petitioner has claimed that she was not allowed to engage any lawyer, nor was she allowed to speak when the matter was called out in the court. She has also pointed out that despite the suit being filed in 2019, no significant progress had been made. The SLP states:

“The petitioner – a resident of Kakdwip – is facing extreme humiliation from her colleagues and is convinced that she will not be able to conduct the trial of the present suit before the court without any fear from the members of the Bar Association of Kakdwip Sub-Divisional Civil and Criminal Court.”

The petitioner has filed the SLP against Kakdwip bar association, and its office bearers, including its president Asit Baran Pahari, vice-president Dipak Kumar Das, secretary Manoj Ponda, assistant secretary Dipankar Haldar, treasurer Pasupati Manna. The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Mohini Priya.

Case Details

Bina Das @ Bina Halder v. Kakdwip Court Bar Association & Ors. | Dairy No. 21236 of 2023