ORDER

1. WE HAVE HEARD THE PETITIONER FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES.

2. THE PETITIONER IS AN ADVOCATE WHO CLAIMS TO BE PRACTISING IN THE SUPREME COURT AND HAVING HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN SONEPAT, HARYANA. HE HAS FILED THIS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS:

"(A) DECLARE THAT AN ACT OF OMISSION AND COMMISSION ON THE PART OF JUDGES TO GO ON EN MASSE LEAVE EVEN FOR AN HOUR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND MISCONDUCT AND WOULD AMOUNT TO STRIKE;

(B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FRAME ADEQUATE RULES AND REGULATIONS RESTRAINING THE JUDGES OF HIGH COURTS AND JUDGES OF SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY TO GO ON STRIKE OR TO MAKE A CALL OF STRIKE IN THE GUISE OF EN MASSE LEAVE;

(C) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE ADEQUATE RULES WHICH PROVIDE MECHANISM FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE JUDGES AT EVERY LEVEL WHO VIOLATE THE LAW;

(D) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR EVERY HIGH COURT AND THEIR SUBORDINATE COURTS THAT AT LEAST 95 PER CENT JUDGES OF THE TOTAL STRENGTH OF THE COURT WOULD REMAIN PRESENT IN COURT ON EVERY WORKING DAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ROSTER;

(E) TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ADOPT AND ENACT A 16 POINT MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT AS LAW WHICH WAS A