E-Paper
‘Deal with firm hand’: SC gives last chance to lawyers to give no-strike pledge
The top court said that it was proposing to take action against the members of the high court bar association in the interest of litigants
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday contemplated contempt action against members of the Punjab and Haryana high court bar association, observing that the time has come to take the extreme step to sentence lawyers who have no respect for the law of the land.
“Those who play with litigants must be dealt with a firm hand,” said a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal. The sharp observations came in a matter where the court on November 29 found the bar association’s refusal to pass a unanimous resolution against going on strikes amounting to contempt since a Constitution bench in 2002 held it was illegal for lawyers to go on strike.
On Friday, a resolution passed by a majority of the association’s executive committee was placed before the court. Some members had refused to be part of an undertaking to refrain from going on strikes.
Giving the dissenting executive committee members a week to fall in line and bring out a unanimous resolution, the bench, said, “Prima facie it appears to us that those opposing the proposed resolution indicate that the members do not have any respect or regard for the law laid down by this court… Time has come to send at least one member of the bar to the place where he deserves.”
The bench underlined that it was proposing to take action in the interest of litigants.
“Once when there is a pinch, they will never go on strike. This is the second or third contempt notice we are issuing to members of the bar. We are in 75 years of our Constitution. If a high court bar association is doing this, we can’t imagine what others (district bar association) must be doing,” the bench said.
The court has posted the matter for December 20.
The issue engaged the attention of the court while hearing a petition filed by real estate firm M3M, whose promoters are facing a money laundering probe.
The company challenged an order of the HC passed in July, reasoning that they were not properly represented at the time due to a strike call given by the high court bar association. The top court set aside the high court order but issued notice to the office bearers of the association seeking an explanation.
The lawyers’ body represented by its acting president JS Brar said that the strike call was given in July over the decision to shift rent cases out of the jurisdiction of the rent controller.
Following the order by the top court, the association executive committee met on December 9 and passed the resolution. But the court declined to close the case when the association’s executive was not on board.
“Unless members of the committee who oppose resolution give a similar undertaking to this court, we will not close the contempt proceedings.” the court said.
