Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Ishwar Shandilya – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 31 of 2016
Decided On : 25-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Kartikey Hari Gupta, Mani Kumar, Amit Bhatt, Prabha Naithani, Piyush Garg, B.S. Adhikari, Rajesh Joshi, Yogesh Pacholia, Tapan Singh.
Headnote:
Supreme Court – Contempt jurisdiction – Exercise of – Violation of order prohibiting strikes/boycott by Advocates throughout the country – Held order of the Supreme Court is a judicial order – Enforceable throughout the territory of India – While the High Court is independent, and is a co-equal institution, the Constitutional scheme and judicial discipline requires that the High Court should give due regard to the orders of the Supreme Court – Further, High Court is requested to consider taking appropriate measures to ensure functioning of Courts on Saturdays – So that judicial work is not hampered by such illegal strikes/boycott of Courts and wholly unjustified condolence. (Paras 120 to 132)
mPpre U;k;ky; & voekuuk {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx & iwjs ns’k esa vf/koDrkvksa }kjk gM+rky o cfg"dkj ij vfHkfu"ks/k ds vkns’k dk mYya?ku & /kkfjr fd mPpre U;k;ky; dk vkns’k U;k;ky; laca/kh vkns’k gS] tksfd Hkkjr ns’k ds jkT;ksa esa ykxw djus ;ksX; gS & tcfd mPp U;k;ky; ,d Lora= vkSj le laLFkku gS] laoS/kkfud ;kstuk vkSj U;kf;d vuq’kklu dh vko’;drk gS fd mPp vnkyr }kjk mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns’kksa dk mfpr lEeku fd;k tk, & vkSj mPp U;k;ky; ls izkFkZuk fd mfpr mik;ksa ij fopkj dj] 'kfuokj dks U;k;ky; dh dk;Z i)fr dks vfHkfuf’pr djs & ftlls fd vfof/kd gM+rkyksa@cfg"dkj ;k iwjh rjg ls vuqfpr laosnuk }kjk U;kf;d dk;Z esa fo?u u iM+sA
¼izLrj 120 ls 132½
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
1. Advocates have been boycotting Courts on all Saturdays, for the past more than 35 years, in the entire District of Dehradun and in several parts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar districts. The genesis of this peculiar form of protest is traceable to Western Uttar Pradesh, of which the aforesaid districts formed part of, before the State of Uttarakhand was created on 09.11.2000. Advocates from Western Uttar Pradesh have been on strike on all Saturdays, for the past three and half decades, in pursuit of their demand that a High Court Bench be established in this region. This problem, which commenced in these parts more than 15 years before the State of Uttarakhand came into being, continues to prevail in several parts of the aforesaid Districts of the State of Uttarakhand for the past nearly two decades even after creation of the State. The Rule of law is being, thereby, undermined. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Another, (2003) 2 SCC 45 and R. Muthukrishnan vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Madras, (2019) AIR SC 849.
2. The Law Commission in its 266th Report, after analyzing the data on loss of working days on account of strikes, opined that the conduct of advocates, in boycotting Courts, affects the functioning of Courts and contributes to the ever mounting pendency of cases. The information sent by the High Court to the Law Commission, with respect to the State of Uttarakhand for the years 2012-2016, showed that, in Dehradun District, Advocates were on strike for 455 days during 2012-2016 (on an average, 91 days per year). In Haridwar District, 515 days (103 days a year) were wasted on account of strikes. Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2018) AIR SC 3635 and Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 8 SCC 335. The Law Commission, thereafter, noted that strike by advocates, or their abstinence from Courts, varied from local, national to international issues, having no relevance to the working of the Courts and were seldom for justifiable reasons. To mention a few, bomb blast in a Pakistan school, amendments to Sri Lanka's Constitution, inter-state river water disputes, attack on/murder of an advocate, earthquake in Nepal, condoling the death of near relatives of advocates, expressing solidarity to advocates of other State Bar Associations, moral support to movements by social activists, heavy rains, religious occasions such as shraadh, Agrasen Jayanti, etc and even for kavi-sammelans. Krishnakant Tamrakar, (2018) AIR SC 3635 and Mahipal Singh Rana, (2016) 8 SCC 335. To add to this long list of flimsy reasons for resorting to strikes, is, as is evident from the material placed on record before us, the strike on 25.02.2013 as the Dehradun Collectorate had a holiday on account of Sri Ravidas Jayanti; and on 29.05.2015, because the railway station was shifted from Dehradun to Harrawala.
3. In Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar districts of the State of Uttarakhand, there are frequent strikes, seriously obstructing access to justice to needy litigants. Even cases of persons languishing in jail/judicial custody are delayed on that account. By every strike, irreversible damage is caused to the judicial system, particularly to those who are denied access thereto. Tax payers' money is wasted on account of judicial and public time being lost. No one is being held accountable for such loss and harassment. Krishnakant Tamrakar, (2018) AIR SC 3635.
4. The Information furnished to the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act on 22.03.2013, regarding strike by members of the Dehradun Bar Association from April, 2010 to February, 2013, reads thus:
The Advocates of Dehradun remained on strike/abstained from work on the following dates from 01.04.2010 to 25.02.2013.
5. The aforesaid information shows that members of the Dehradun Bar As
