, in its recently held meeting, refused to stay the May 7 order of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH). The BCPH had stayed the operation of a resolution of the High Court Bar Association, which had sought a transfer of the Chief Justice of the court.){kind=link}
The Bar Council of India (BCI), in its recently held meeting, refused to stay the May 7 order of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH). The BCPH had stayed the operation of a resolution of the High Court Bar Association, which had sought a transfer of the Chief Justice of the court.
On May 7, the High Court Bar Association had passed a resolution against the CJ, seeking his transfer on the ground that there were serious irregularities in the matter of listing of cases. It claimed that out of 49 judges, only 12 were allotted work, causing a large backlog of cases. The resolution said even urgent matters like regular and anticipatory bails were not being taken up.
The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana passed a reasoned and Speaking Order and stayed the operation of the resolution passed by the High Court Bar Association on the same day. The High Court Bar Association challenged the stay order of the state bar council on the ground that the order of stay passed by the chairman of the state bar council was against the principle of natural justice and it was done in a very hasty manner. On this ground, the High Court Bar Association preferred a Revision Petition before the Bar Council of India.
The high court bar association had resolved to boycott the chief justice’s court, till such transfer was effected.
The BCI took note of the fact that such problems are common to almost all the high courts. Barring one or two high courts, almost all other high courts are unable to take-up urgent matters and there is a strong resentment among the litigants and the lawyers. However, at the same time, the council has also taken into consideration the serious risk of the life of lawyers and their staff even when the cases are conducted through video-conferencing.
The BCI, in its resolution, has also observed that the demand of transfer of the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court prima-facie is improper and unjustified and is not going to solve any problem. The council further observed that such type of politics cannot be allowed to be indulged in by any bar association and that bar associations have been advised to desist from passing such resolutions. The BCI has expressed and placed its hopes and trust on the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court that he will fix a meeting with the committee soon after getting a request from its convener.
The BCI has constituted a 7-member committee to meet the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court for redressal of grievances of the advocates.
The council has not granted any stay of the order passed by the state bar council chairman and has, in clear words, noted that it cannot support any resolution for a boycott of the court of the chief justice or any judge of the high court on such grounds. Such extreme recourse could be taken by a body of lawyers only in rarest of rare cases where there are strong compelling grounds and there is no other remedy left to the legal fraternity.
Read Also: Covid infected judicial officers in dire straits, Delhi High Court told
“Neither the Union government nor any state government has come to the rescue of advocates during these difficult times and thousands of the lawyers in the country have died due to the pandemic,” reads the press release sign by Srimanto Sen, Secretary, Bar Council of India.