Orissa High Court Boycott: Lawyers must refuse to abide by call for strike, Delhi HC refuses to entertain plea for want of jurisdiction.

Source – barandbench.com

Remarking that lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for a strike, the Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition filed before it in view of the indefinite boycott called by the Orissa High Court Bar Association.

The petition was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioner, Samrendra Berua, had moved the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Governor of Odisha with respect to the disqualification of certain members of the Odisha Legislative Assembly.

The petitioner contended that certain elected members of the Odisha Legislative Assembly were disqualified under Article 191(1)(a), in violation of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner informed the Court that he made representations to the Governor of Odisha in May 2019 and September 2019 requesting him to take action after seeking an opinion from the Election Commission of India.

However, no such opinion was sought. Aggrieved by the conduct of the Governor, the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court.

Apart from seeking a direction to the Governor to seek the Election Commission’s opinion on disqualification, there was an “indirect challenge” to the provisions of the Odisha Offices of Profit (Removal of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2016 which exempted certain categories of persons/posts from the definition of “office of profit” under Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India.

After going through the facts of the case, the Court observed that no cause of action had arisen in Delhi and that no relief was sought against the Election Commission of India. Therefore, the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in terms of Article 226, it said.

To justify approaching the Delhi High Court, the petitioner submitted that since there was an indefinite boycott call given by the Orissa High Court Bar Association, he had not filed a petition in that High Court.

Justice Sachdeva, however, rejected the reason, calling it “not sustainable”.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex.-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India, the Court reiterated that a Bar Association/Council cannot call for boycott or strike and that all lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott.

“..the Bar Association/Council cannot call for boycott or strike and only in rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, the courts may turn a blind eye for one day and further that all lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott and no lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out.”

In view of the above, the petition was dismissed.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Sudarsh Menon and Ravindra A Lokhande.

Th respondents were represented by Advocates Soumyajit Pani and PR Chopra.

Lawyers in the state of Orissa first went on strike in April this year, when the Orissa High Court Bar Association passed a resolution registering its protest against certain recommendations made by the High Court Collegium for elevation to the High Court. The lawyers protested the recommendation to elevate lawyers who are not regular practitioners before the High Court as judges.

More recently, the Orissa High Court Bar Association resolved to boycott the courts of the High Court Collegium judges after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointments of judicial officer Bibhu Prasad Routray and Advocate Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi as judges of the Orissa High Court.

In view of the “continuous strikes” over the past six months, the Orissa HC earlier in October initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against 68 bar associations, including the High Court Bar Association. In light of this, the petitioner company had sought a transfer of its case from Orissa High Court to Telangana or any other High Court in the country.

Last week, the Supreme Court asked the Registrar of the Orissa High Court to submit a report detailing the measures taken to allow access to lawyers who are willing to appear before the court of Chief Justice KS Jhaveri.

In the same matter, the Supreme Court opined on Thursday that there was little doubt that the conduct of the lawyers amounted to contempt of court. The Apex Court went on to seek the personal presence of the Chairman of the Orissa State Bar Council as well as the President of the Orissa High Court Bar Association on the next date of hearing. The Court also issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and sought its response on the steps taken by it against the lawyers.