DRT Judge Facing Bar Association's Protest Moves Supreme Court Against HC Direction To Not Pass Any Adverse Orders

The Presiding Officer of DRT-II Chandigarh, who was restrained from passing any adverse orders in any of the cases pending before him, by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the said order.

The temporary restraint, which is to last till November 30, was passed by a  division bench of Justices MS Ramachandra Rao and HS Madaan of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on an application filed by the DRT Bar Association.

The DRT Bar Association had alleged that the Presiding Officer harassed counsels appearing both for financial institutions and borrowers etc. It also produced before the Court an order passed by the Presiding Officer, adjourning a matter of 2021, where the respondent had become ex-parte, to 2026. It was asserted that there were several such orders passed by him.

In order to register its protest, the Bar had even gone on a strike from October 26 and the counsels were not appearing before the concerned Presiding Officer.

M.M. Dhonchak, the Presiding Officer in question, through the SLP, has contended that it is well settled law that the Bar Association has no authority to discuss the conduct of a Judge in its meeting. Further, he has argued that advocates cannot resort to strike/boycott and a Bar Association cannot pass a resolution to support the strike/boycott of the Court work. The SLP filed through Advocate DK Sharma adds–

"The sum and substance of the impugned order in virtually allowing the writ petition is indicative of the fact that a Judge shall hold his office only during the pleasure of the Bar. Most of the time, in the Bar Associations, the people who have no briefs, rule the roost and they are instrumental in reaching the decisions. In the above said scenario, the Judge has to deviate from his objective and independent functioning to advance the cause of justice and he has to play a second fiddle to the Advocates."

The petitioner stated that the impugned order passed by the High Court has "virtually legalised the illegal and contemptuous boycott of the Tribunal by the Advocates and the same is likely to have a devastating effect not only upon the independent functioning of the Tribunals but also the whole District Judiciary of the country."

The petitioner stated that he has a reputation of being a honest and upright judge after his years of service as a District Judge and that the High Court's order sends a message that the judicial officers should be subservient to the "arm-twisting" tactics adopted by the Bar.

"The sum and substance of the impugned order also say that the Judge has to be pliant and Machiavellian in his approach since taking any stand in accordance with the law of the land especially non submission to arm twisting by the Bar Association or its Members, has the potential of withdrawal of his work by a judicial fiat even without providing an opportunity of hearing to him, more so when this Hon'ble Court time and again held that interim orders should not be passed in a mechanical way which would tantamount to allowing  Civil Writ Petition itself", the plea stated.