Bombay HC Disposes Of PIL Against BCI, Bar Council ‘Resolution’ On Lawyers’ Token Strike [Read Order]

A day ahead of the BCI’s call for nationwide protest against the Law Commission’s suggestions for significant amendments to the Advocate’s Act 1961, the Bombay High Court on Thursday disposed of a PIL challenging the “resolution” passed by BCI as well as the state Bar Council calling for advocates to abstain from work on Friday (March 31).

A division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice GS Kulkarni agreed to hear the matter in the post-lunch session after it was mentioned by the petitioner’s advocate Tanvir Nizam at 1.45 pm.

As reported earlier, on March 26, the BCI had called for a nationwide protest. Following this, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa made an appeal to all enrolled advocates to abstain from court work on March 31, calling the amendments proposed by the Law Commission as “undemocratic and anti-lawyers”.

The appeal stated: “In form of a token protest for one day, we have to abstain from court work.”

Today, the Bar Council denied passing any “resolution” on the matter; instead it argued that it was merely an appeal.

Also, the Advocate’s Association of Western India (AAWI) passed a resolution in support of the appeal.

The petitioners had sought the BCI and Bar Council’s resolution to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the BCI and the state Bar Council “do not have statutory powers to call for lawyers to abstain from court work in any manner”.

The petition also stated that by this resolution, they (BCI and Bar Council) were challenging the supremacy of the Parliament in making laws, as the Advocate’s Act (Amendment) Bill is still at an “embryo stage” and is yet to be passed by the Parliament.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Harish Uppal vs. Union of India, the petitioners argued that an advocate could not abstain from attending court even if a call for the same has been given by the respective Bar Association or Bar Council.

However, the court asked the advocates to abide by the law and expressed hope that wisdom would prevail upon them and disposed of the petitions.

Read the Order here.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

*

  • T C Sekhar says:

    Dear All, Good evening.

    me, 1. Entire legal system should give highest importance to dispose of Civil, petty cases first on very fast track mode to reduce the number of pending cases. This will psychologically help the system to have a feel of reduced work load & clear that mental block.

    2. For the above said cases there should be only very minimal number of adjournments shall be allowed and strict time bound disposals.

    3.Immediate attention should be paid on serious criminal, PIL, societal, family matters, property disputes and international cases and a careful and adequate time should be granted to dispose the cases suitably after thoroughly going through the process.

    4. Cases should not be attended basing on civil, criminal or family etc. The only criteria in prioritising the listing & proceedings should be just based on the quantum, severity, seriousness and anti- national or societal. There should not be priority just basing on civil or criminal

    5 There should be increased number of courts, Judges and setup to clear the backlog. There is a huge list of well qualified & experienced and unemployed legal fraternity is available in the Industry, why not we use their services to reduce the work load and expedite cases.

    It’s purely and only my personal opinion . Thanks for a patient reading.

    Best regards
    T C Sekhar
    +91 7893953953

Top