SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1852

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
M/s PLR Projects Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 33859 of 2022 in T.P.(C) No. 2419 of 2019
Decided On : 14-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Arvind P. Dattar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sibo Shankar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Advocate, Mr. Debabrata Sahu, Advocate, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Advocate, Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Prabhakaran, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Advocate, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Ram Shankar, Advocate, Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Madaan, Advocate, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Advocate, Mr. Ashok K Parija, Advocate, Gen., Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M.C. Nanda, Advocate, Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Advocate, Mr. Shashwat Panda, Advocate, Mr. Anirudddha Purushotham, Advocate, Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Ms.Eliza Bar, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Advocate, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Kshitij Singh, Advocate, Mr. Joydip Roy, Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocate, Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Advocate, Mrs. K. Entoli Sema, Advocate, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advocate, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocate, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Advocate, Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate, Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Advocate, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Sagar, Advocate, Counsel for the appearing Parties.

The legal fraternity must act responsibly, and the use of technology in courts can replace the need for new Benches.

Headnote:

Agitation - Setting up Benches of Orissa High Court - IPC - Contempt of Court - Technology in Courts

Fact of the Case:

The Central Action Committee of all Bar Associations of Western Odisha engaged in agitation and violence to demand the setting up of Benches of the Orissa High Court. The police's failure to control the situation led to the court's intervention.

Finding of the Court:

The court condemned the agitation and violence, directed the police to maintain peace, and issued contempt notices to the Bar Association members. It also rejected the demand for setting up new Benches and emphasized the use of technology in the courts.

Issues: Agitation for Benches, Police Failure, Contempt of Court, Use of Technology

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the responsibility of the legal fraternity, rejected the demand for new Benches, and supported the use of technology in the courts.

Final Decision: The court directed the police to maintain peace, issued contempt notices to the Bar Association members, rejected the demand for new Benches, and supported the use of technology in the courts.

ORDER

1. The Central Action Committee of all Bar Associations of Western Odisha indulged in agitation and writing to advance their case for setting up Benches of the Orissa High Court. Undoubtedly, the agitation went out of hand. It has been like the ride of a tiger where the tiger has mauled, if not eaten them up. But then that is the consequence which must flow to them when they indulge in such activities.

2. Mr. Arvind Dattar, learned senior counsel for the High Court of Orissa has placed before us some suggestions which we want to deal with at the inception before we proceed further on different aspects.

The first submission is that there is no information of arrest of non-lawyers/outsiders who are visible in the vidoes and photographs and FIRs. must be registered under the relevant provisions against both lawyers and non-lawyers. We have little doubt that it has been an abject failure of the police and we did put to the police authorities whether they are capable or not of controlling the situation or would they require us to get some para military force deputed if they find themselves incompetent to handle the situation. The IG, Police, Sambalpur and the DGP, Odisha have assured that what has happened will not happen again and they take personal responsibility to ensure that complete peace is maintained and no interruption is caused in the working of Court in any manner, whatsoever. We clarify that whatever extent of force is to be deputed must be deputed. Whatever element of force is necessary to enforce the discipline must be used and there shall be no mollycoddling because somebody is a lawyer or not and the FIR thus must be registered under the relevant provisions of the IPC and not a whitewash. We have indicated to the police authorities that their ability to control the position will be closely monitored by us in these on going proceedings.

Secondly, there is suggestion that all the office bearers of all the Bar Associations who participated in the boycott of the Courts on 12.12.2022 and indulged in violence should be issued contempt notices.

We agree with the suggestion. The list of all the members of the Bar Associations will be furnished by Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel and contempt notices will be issued to all the members as to why they should not be proceeded against and punished in accordance with law for contempt of orders of this Court.

Thirdly, it has been stated that the demand for setting up of the Benches of the High Court is not only from Sambalpur but also from Bolangir, Koraput, Berhampur, Balasore, Sonepur, Rourkela.

This seems to have become prestige issue rather than a functional issue. In fact Mr. Dattar says that only Koraput and Bolangir fall within the parameters of the Jaswant Singh Committee report of 1985 which prescribed at least a distance of 300 km. Thus in terms of that Committee report, there is no question of setting up Benches elsewhere.

We may also note that with the passage of time when the use of technology has made the parameters in a sense obsolete. The use of technology has been quite widespread now in the Courts and monitored by the High Court of Orissa. Thus the very justification for having any Bench of the High Court no more exists.

In fact there are now counter demands of the Bhubaneswar Bar Association that the entire High Court should shift from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar. Naturally the Cuttack Bar Association opposes the same. The shifting of the High Court or creation of Benches is a matter of serious administration and cannot be done by such whimsical demands. We are putting this in the order to foreclose these issues which continue to be raised repeatedly and had produced this violence. In fact the Resolution passed by the Central Action Committee is only of suspension of on going movement of strike with a high hope for formation of permanent Bench of Orissa High Court in Western Odisha at Sambalpur. We reject the Resolution. The Central Action Committee would have to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top