1. Agitation and violence by Bar Associations demanding High Court Benches — disruption of judicial functioning — criminal and contempt proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
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
Important Points
The legal fraternity must act responsibly, and the use of technology in courts can replace the need for new Benches.
Subject
Civil Law - Court Procedure and Practice
Act Referred
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
-
constitutional law
- contempt of court (Para 2)
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.
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.
Table of Contents
2. Demand for High Court Benches based on distance — request for criminal prosecution and contempt notices against lawyers participating in violent boycotts. (Para 2 )
3. Technological advancements render physical Benches obsolete — lawyers engaging in criminal activities forfeit professional privileges — disruption of courts adversely affects litigants. (Para 2 , 3 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 16 )
4. The Bar Council has the incidental power to interimly suspend a lawyer's license to practice pending the disposal of disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Demand for Benches rejected — direction to register FIRs and issue contempt notices — approval of lawyer suspensions — mandate for virtual court rooms and security. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 15 )
6. Does the Bar Council have the power to suspend a lawyer's license pending a disciplinary inquiry?
Yes, the power to revoke or suspend a license permanently or for a fixed term includes the incidental power of interim suspension pending the disposal of disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Do lawyers retain professional privileges when engaging in criminal activities or violent disruptions of court?
No, lawyers who engage in criminal activities, such as disrupting traffic or browbeating officials, lose their privilege of being an advocate and should be treated as criminals under the law. (Para 3 )
8. Is the establishment of physical High Court Benches still justified given technological advancements?
No, the widespread use of technology and the ability to appear virtually from district courts have made previous distance-based parameters obsolete, removing the justification for creating new Benches. (Para 2 )
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
