Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 1214
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
In re. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Taken Up Writ Petition No. 23065 of 2010
Decided on : 07-12-2010
For the Petitioners:------- For the Respondent:R1, R3 to R5 ¬Advocate General, R2 - Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, R6 - E. Ajay Reddy, R7 - G. Vidya Sagar, R8 to R28 - C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Advocate for Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, Advocates.
Headnote:a) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE :- Advocates were held to have no right to resort to strike the work or call for a boycott the functioning of the court. If they fail to attend the case when called for on the ground that a boycott call was given by the Bar Association, they are liable to pay the cost imposed personally apart from the damage liable to be paid to the client for the loss sustained by his non-appearance. Courts were cautioned against the practice of sympathetic treatment to such boycott calls by the Bar association except in rarest of rare cases of affront to independent functioning and self respect of the Bar at the most for a day, but not more that too after the President of the Bar Association consults with the Chief Justice. In any case the Courts were cautioned against showing any leniency in this regard which will be abdication of their constitutional duty to protect the right of citizens. (Harish Uppal case (2003) 2 SCC 45) (Para 28)
b) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE :- Advocates causing disruption of the functioning of the courts by violent demonstration in the court room or asking the advocates waiting for their turn of the case in the list to be called to leave the court premises and any such attempts are deprecated and the High Court judges as well as the Presiding Officers of the Mofusiil Courts directed to take appropriate steps against all such persons including punishing them for contempt of court and also refer their names to the Bar Council for taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings against them. Any practice on the part of presiding officers or the High Court Judges like acceding to the request of the Presiding of Bar Associations not to dismiss the cases of the advocates who are not attending due to the boycott call is violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in this regard made in (Harish Uppal case (2003) 2 SCC 45) (Para 32)
c) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE – Necessity for evolving Court Security System to protect the judges, advocates and ordinary litigants from violent attacks from unforeseen circumstances was stressed and directions given to the legislature and executive branch to provide men and material necessary for such a well planned mechanism to be maintained on the control of the judiciary. Objections raised by the Bar Association that the unfortunate incidents of September 2010 have arisen out of a sudden unforeseen circumstances and in view of the normalcy prevailing continuance of the strict entry scrutiny system imposed in the aftermath of such ugly incidents would impede the concept of public hearing system and access to the judiciary is rejected. (Para 48)
d) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - Contention of the Bar Association that public hearing of judicial proceeding is a fundamental right is not correct that it is not uncommon for holding in camera proceedings in special cases as in the cases of Divorce Cases, Hindu Marriages Act etc.
e) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE :- Elaborate Court Security System in a three level had been issued by the Bench which shall be enforced strictly. On the first level the entire court premises were to be declared as HSZ (High Security Zone) as per the provisions of GOI and the exterior of the High Court building should be protected by adequate police force. Entry into the court premises shall be regulated by issue of regular proximity cards generated by computer which will be issued to advocates, advocate clerks and court staff, and proximity cards to the litigants visiting the court. Rdysnlidhmrny og CVTV cameras and deployment of security people in mufti. Entry into the court room also directed to be regulated, Car parking etc to be under he control of the police security personnel appointed in the first level.
Per V.V.S. Rao,J.
PROLOGUE This ‘matter extraordinaire’ is an extraordinary case. It stands apart from many peculiar cases that have been resolved by this summit Court if Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, in its more than five decades long journey in striving to dispense justice with constitutional vision. The adjudication this case is concerned with the protection life and liberty of people and property. Hence, we shall deal with competing concerns with delicate touch. To enter a caveat, though we are seriously concerned; the standard of judicial review is neither strict scrutiny nor is it a dialogic. It is only the differential, judicial review, to find solution, at least, for the present.
2. Indian democracy can neither survive nor sustain without an independent judiciary. A well administered, organized and managed hierarchical Court structure and user friendly judicial management system is sine qua non for democratic polity which “solemnly resolved” the Constitutional rule of law. To promote such rule, there has to be thus no nonsense ‘ Court Security System’ with ‘battlefit preparedness’ as mission and firmly established confidence invoking special security processes and procedures as vision. It is necessary that all judicial participants and stakeholders – Judges, advocates/their clerks, Court staff, Government Pleaders, Public Prosecutors, Treasury officials, prison officials and not the least citizens in legal distress; can trust and have faith in the judicial branch. There is no gainsaying that the right or seek redressal in an independent judicial forum is a human right recognized by International Bill of Human Rights and the Constitution of India (Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 2(3) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Section 2(d) and 2(f) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Articles 14,21,32 and 226). This case thus in way is an opportunity to instill the confidence in the people that the High Court of the State would nurture and nourish that belief, by protecting the people seeking justice when it is denied or delayed by other two great organs of the State.
The Genesis
3. In the third quarter of this year, a group of lawyers (a sui generis Joint Action Committee or JAC) started agitation. They demanded that 42% of the positions of Government counsel must go to the advocates coming from nine Telangana Districts. Three of their members commenced hunger strike. This led to surcharged emotions among JAC supporters. They gave a call for boycotting the High Court. That, as per the law of the land, lawyers have no right to abstain or boycott the Courts is a different matter. ‘Law’ and ‘Rule of Law’ take a backseat when agitations turn violent. Reason subordinates to emotion and ”no holds barred” bug inflicts maverick front liners fighting for the cause of perceived inadequate justice. This manifested on14th, 15th and 16th of September 2010 AD. All the Judges holding the Court have had to rise as the lawyers were coerced to go out of the Court. Three Courts and Honorable Presiding Judges were victims of violent group of lawyers enforcing boycott call. Furniture was broken, electrical fittings were damaged, the files and missiles were thrown at, and abuses were hurled at the Honorable Judges. The violence of protesters also extended to the Chambers of learned Judges as well as the Registrars of the High Court. Instances of manhandling of well-meaning lawyers – without gender discrimination – were also, reported. There was convenient disappearance of lawyers’ representatives and leaders of the Bar. The situation was such that nobody was willing to listen to reason or heed to good sense to ensure dignified and peaceful Court functioning.
4. The historical fact, as above – like in any other; is hearsay to start with. It also does not find in the pleadings but during the day long non-adversarial Court deliberation, these things remain unrebutted. As ma
