In Re: Subhas Tyagi

M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.—This matter has come before us on a reference made by the District Judge, Ghaziabad. The details have been mentioned by us in our earlier order dated 8.7.2004. Today the President, High Court Bar Association Sri C. L. Pandey along with the President and Secretary of Ghaziabad District Bar Association (who had been summoned by us by our order dated 8.7.2004) appeared before us. Sri Pandey has placed before us a copy of the resolution of District Bar Association, Ghaziabad of the meeting held on 9.7.2004, by which they have recalled the resolution of dated 5.7.2004 for boycotting the Court of Sri P. K. Srivastava, A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad. They have also given assurance that such act will not be repeated in future.

This Court is extremely reluctant to take action against lawyers as they are also members of the judicial family. However, there are limits beyond which the lawyers should not go. In this case Sri P. K. Srivastava, A.C.J.M. wrote a letter dated 6.7.2004 to the District Judge, Ghaziabad (which is on the record of this case) in which it is mentioned that Sri Subhash Tyagi, President, District Bar Association, Ghaziabad, with others entered into the Chamber of C.J.M., Ghaziabad, where Sri Srivastava was also sitting. Sri Tyagi caught hold of the shoulder of Sri P. K. Srivastava and told him that he must grant bail to Sri M. L. Rai. This was a highly objectionable and deplorable conduct of Sri Tyagi. Lawyers must know how to behave in Court. It is the discretion of the Court to grant bail or not, and no lawyer can demand that bail must be granted by the Court. However, in view of the apologies and assurance on behalf of the President and Secretary of Ghaziabad District Bar Association that such behaviour will not be repeated we are not taking any action against Sri Tyagi and others who misbehaved with Sri P. K. Srivastava, but we are giving a severe warning to them that in future such misbehaviour will not be tolerated.

In this case the Ghaziabad Bar Association had resolved on 5.7.2004, to boycott the Court of Sri P. K. Srivastava as he had refused bail in a case pertaining to a lawyer who was allegedly impersonating as a High Court Judge.

It had been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that lawyers strike is illegal vide Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; U.P. Sales Tax Services Association Vs. Taxation Bar Association, Agra and others, , etc.

Apart from the above, the strike by the district court lawyers in Ghaziabad was wholly unjustified, irresponsible reckless and uncalled for. This Court is not going to tolerate this kind of behaviour by the lawyers of the district courts. The people of the State are fed up of lawyers strikes, which often take place at the drop of a hat.

In U. P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra and Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court observed:

It has been a frequent spectacle in the recent past to witness that advocates strike work and boycott the Courts at the slightest provocation overlooking the harm caused to the judicial system in general and the litigant public in particular and to themselves in the estimation of the general public.

In the present case, the facts as reported reveal that an advocate impersonated as a Judge and enjoyed the State facilities which are meant for a High Court Judge. He was arrested and his bail application was rejected. If the lawyers were dissatisfied with the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, it was open to them to move a bail application before the District Judge, Ghaziabad, and if the learned District Judge (or the Judge to whom he assigned the application) would have also rejected the bail application then they could have moved this Court, but taking the law into their own hands and going on strike on such a frivolous pretext was highly objectionable and deplorable.

We have in several earlier decisions observed that if district court lawyers go on strike then the Judges must sit in Court and decide the cases even in the absence of lawyers, and if advocates disturb the Court then the District Judge must call the police to prevent them from doing so. No one will be allowed to hold the judiciary at ransom.

However, since contempt jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction hence this Court is not bound to take action as this is in the discretion of the Court. On the facts and circumstances of case while we deplore the conduct of Sri Tyagi and others who were responsible for this incident we are not taking any action against them in view of their apologies and undertaking but we give severe warning to Sri Tyagi and others that they must not misbehave like this in future otherwise they will face serious consequences. With this observation the contempt proceedings are discharged.