Back
Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Demolition of Lawyers' Illegal Chambers in Lucknow
The on Tuesday firmly declined to interfere with an order directing the demolition of approximately 72 unauthorized lawyers' chambers constructed near the . A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta rejected the plea filed by the , and advised the lawyers occupying the illegal structures to vacate them peacefully. The Apex Court made clear that encroachments on public roads and open spaces within court premises cannot be justified merely because the occupants hold positions in the local bar association.
Background of the Dispute
The matter stems from a longstanding issue of illegal construction and encroachment by lawyers on public pathways and utility land in the precincts of the . The had earlier taken of the problem and directed the to remove the encroachments. The High Court ordered that the demolition be carried out on a Sunday to avoid disruption of judicial work, and warned of action if lawyers or their associates obstructed the exercise. The issue escalated in May when clashes broke out between lawyers and personnel during an earlier attempt to remove unauthorized chambers in the Qaiserbagh area.
The High Court, in its order, recorded that over 100 illegally constructed chambers had been demolished pursuant to its directions. However, of the 72 chambers or shops against which notices had initially been issued, only 14 had been removed, with some reportedly being re-encroached upon. The High Court directed the Lucknow Police Commissioner, District Magistrate, and Municipal Commissioner to coordinate the demolition exercise and ensure it did not lead to any law-and-order situation. The Central Bar Association challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Hearing: No Room for Encroachment
During the hearing, , appearing for the bar association, sought an alternative location for the lawyers. The bench, however, was unequivocal in its stance. “You occupy the main road, you occupy the open space inside the court premises, raise unauthorised construction and then say I am elected as the President of the association, I am a member of the governing body, and therefore I have a right to continue, no,” Justice Nath observed.
Drawing from personal experience, Justice Nath noted, “I have seen it myself when I was there for two years as a senior judge. I know what kind of constructions, how the roads have been obstructed, traffic is completely obstructed. Demolition has to take place.” The bench categorically rejected any suggestion of mediation, with Justice Nath remarking, “Mediation with lawyers! No. Dismissed.” Justice Sandeep Mehta also posed a pointed question: “Who would protect court premises if lawyers themselves encroached upon them?” He recalled an incident during a visit to a district court in Rajasthan where a lawyer had allegedly converted parking space meant for district judges into a chamber.
Legal Analysis: Prevails
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the fundamental principle that no person, regardless of their professional standing, is above the law. Encroachments on public property, especially within court premises, strike at the very heart of judicial administration. The bench’s refusal to entertain the plea sends a clear message that unauthorized constructions, even when erected by members of the legal fraternity, cannot be tolerated. The Court’s observation that holding an office in a bar association does not confer a right to occupy public space reinforces the concept of .
The rejection of mediation is also significant. By summarily dismissing the suggestion, the Supreme Court signaled that there is no scope for compromise on matters of illegal occupation of public land. The Court effectively treated the issue as one of law enforcement rather than a dispute amenable to . This approach aligns with the consistent judicial stance against encroachments, as seen in cases involving slum dwellers, street vendors, and now lawyers.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
This ruling has immediate and far-reaching implications for the legal community. Lawyers across the country, particularly those who have occupied unauthorized spaces near court complexes, must take note that the judiciary will not shield such conduct. The decision may prompt other high courts and district courts to take similar proactive steps to clear their premises of illegal structures. It also serves as a reminder to bar associations that their role is to uphold the , not to defy it.
The incident in Rajasthan highlighted by Justice Mehta further illustrates the pervasive nature of the problem. If lawyers themselves encroach upon court facilities, it erodes public confidence in the justice system. The Supreme Court’s firm stance helps restore that confidence by demonstrating that no professional group is immune from accountability.
Conclusion
By upholding the ’s demolition order, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that court premises must remain inviolable spaces dedicated to the administration of justice. The bench’s pointed remarks about traffic obstruction and the misuse of bar association positions strike a chord with the public and the legal fraternity alike. As the demolition proceeds under the watchful eye of the district authorities, the message is clear: the cannot be undermined by the very officers who are sworn to uphold it. The Central Bar Association and other similar bodies must now look to lawful alternatives, such as seeking government assistance for land acquisition, rather than occupying public spaces.
