Bench and Bar: Two Pillars, One Purpose
The Hon’ble Judge’s dignity is best protected by fairness, and the Ld. Advocate’s by restraint. The Ld. Bar and the Hon’ble Bench share one purpose, and the common man’s faith in justice depends on them showing it. Both lines of conduct deserve scrutiny.
Adv. Pooja Chand Dwivedi
10/31/20265 min read
Courts have an old tradition of courtesy. The advocate is called “learned” and the judge “Hon’ble”. Did one ever wonder why?
These are neither flattery nor adulation.
“My learned friend” acknowledges that the Ld. Advocate is an officer of the Hon’ble Court, trained in law and bound to assist it. “Hon’ble” honours the office, the authority entrusted to decide disputes, not the person. The respect runs both ways. The Bar Council of India Rules require Ld. Advocates to maintain dignity and a respectful attitude towards Hon’ble Courts, and Hon’ble Judges are expected to hear Ld. Advocates with patience. The Hon’ble Judge’s dignity is best protected by fairness, and the Ld. Advocate’s by restraint.
The unfortunate incident on 27th October has been told to be the cause of chaos on 28th October in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The incident has immensely pained young lawyers like us and has forced to question. As is widely being narrated, though there are several versions floating around and none of which can be verified. Apparently a Ld. Advocate objected to a police officer sitting in a seat reserved for lawyers, officer who was summoned by the Hon’ble Court in a particular matter. The Ld. State Counsel objected on this other Ld. Counsel’s objection and complained it to the Hon’ble Court the moment the Hon’ble Bench Judges arrived. The Ld. Advocate was then apparently told to apologise to the Hon’ble Court and later to the government official which was taken as affront to the lawyers fraternity.
The Allahabad High Court Bar Association, reported the incident and warned that its members would boycott the Hon’ble Court if no action was taken. This was done vide a letter, the contents of which was circulated among the lawyers through the day on 27th October. Apparently the gravity, depth and anger building amidst the Ld. Advocates found its expression the very next day.
On subsequent day, just few minutes before 10am in morning, I happened to be rushing to the criminal side new building and while crossing the galleries of Hon’ble Court where Ld. Advocates gathered to boycott, it was difficult to cross, and being a female even more difficult to brush by them. Soon voices filled the gallery, tough language echoed breaking the dignity and sanity of the courtrooms. The images in social media is for all to see.
Later, after finishing my matter at 10:30am in new building, I happened to walk towards the same gallery and noticed security personals with Ld. Advocates swarming the gallery like bees. Yet in another adjacent Hon’ble Court No. 51, where I had a matter, the courtroom being only separated by a staircase, I surprisingly noticed that the Hon’ble Court’s proceedings were ongoing despite the noise of the gallery which had filled the air. I had no where else to go in the mob and being concerned with the security, I decided to sit in the courtroom itself. Abuse along with slogans “adhivakta ekta jindabad” could be easily heard. Voices were heard asking for Ld. State Counsel to be called out for apparent manhandling. At that moment it appeared that it was not just Ld. Bar and Hon’ble Bench but rather Ld. Bar vs Hon’ble Bench vs Ld. Counsel vs Ld. State Counsel. The Ld. Counsel protesting outside and Ld. State Counsel in the courtroom belong to the same Ld. Bar, but it appears that they drop the badge of counsel and carry only state within when they walk in the courtroom. It was a sorry state of realization, yet I rationalised it with the solemn understanding that each Ld. Advocate ultimately represents the interest of his/her client.
Sitting in chaos, I also had time to ponder, to think and to revisit. With all humility I marveled at the wonder as to how calm can one Hon’ble Judge be, stay focused, concentrating on the matter ignoring the chaos and disturbance when other is vocal and reactive? I was filled with admiration and respect but at the same time, occasions also pacified me that whatever was happening was sad and unfortunate. Sometimes the system ends up going for a reboot so that a new, better and evolved system unfolds. Probably this incident will give reasons to re-evaluate the system. Re-evaluation by all sides.
On subsequent day, through order dated 28th October, the Hon’ble Court observed “Such incident amounts to interference the Court proceedings as poor litigants come to the High Court for redressal of their grievance, and merely because some of the Advocates have problem with particular Court, they cannot be permitted to raise slogans, shout and disturb to other Courts’ proceedings and use such words which is in the nature to intimidate the Court. This is wholly unjustified. Therefore, this Court is of the view that such conduct of some Advocates is absolutely contemptuous.” The Hon’ble Court further directed Registrar (protocol) “to get the CCTV footage of camera installed outside court no. 66, identify the Advocates involved in the incident and submit a report to the Court by next date of listing. After identifying the Advocates, the matter may be referred to Bar Council of U.P. for initiation of disciplinary proceedings as well as initiating the contempt proceedings against.” This order, it is widely perceived, further fueled the precarious situation.
Amidst it all, I wondered, how an Hon’ble Court being in new building, in completely different gallery, be so disturbed so as to notice it in an order of the Hon’ble Court yet, while another adjacent Hon’ble Court (Court No. 51) continued hearing its matters even though being in the same gallery where the ruckus was actually taking place.
On the following day, subsequently, vide order dated 29th October, the same Hon’ble Court observed “This Court is conscious that most of the advocates practicing at the Allahabad High Court are not only very sincere but also well-behaved.” The two orders of the Hon’ble Court, noticing diverge conduct of the Ld. Bar, is a fine occasion to re-look into details of working of the institution itself. Yet, as an Advocate, I continue to ruminate on the differential conduct of the Ld. Advocates, as noticed by the Hon’ble Court.
The incident was reported all over the places in newspaper and digital media and queries from general public were embarrassing to answer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8575-8576 of 2023, titled the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 4) has framed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on personal appearance of government officers in court proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the use of the power to summon the presence of government officials must not be used as a tool to pressurize the government, particularly, under the threat of contempt.
If an officer appearing before the Hon’ble Court amounts to humiliation then no one should be summoned before the Hon’ble Court but once the Hon’ble Court has summoned any government official, they are mere litigants and not any other privileged government official. It was perhaps, this, and I could be wrong, that eventually has led to the erosion of trust. However there is no doubt that when a common person sees thrown chairs, locked gates and adjourned cases, he begins to wonder whether the system has time for his grievance? more so when they fight pressures and counter-pressures amongst their ownselves. One must realise that boycott or a blockade harms only the interest of the litigant, which all the trustees of the Judiciary are bound by profession and oath both, to protect and foster.
A poor litigant gets justice only when both sides do their part: the Ld. Advocate presents the case without fear, and the Hon’ble Judge decides without fear or favour. If either side weakens the other, the litigant pays. The Ld. Bar and the Hon’ble Bench share one purpose, and the common man’s faith in justice depends on them showing it. Both lines of conduct deserve scrutiny. If a Ld. Advocate felt humiliated for raising a courtroom objection, that deserves a fair grievance redressal by the competent authority. But no grievance justifies broken furniture or foul language. Two wrongs never made a right.