Taking serious note of the boycott of judicial work in protest against Advocate General Amit Kumar, the Meghalaya High Court has twice issued notices of criminal contempt to the office bearers and executive members of the association. The court called this an obstruction in the judicial process.
Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court has issued criminal contempt notices to office-bearers and executive members of two bar associations who called for boycott of judicial work in protest against Advocate General Amit Kumar. Taking suo motu cognizance of this mass boycott, the court said that such action of staying away from judicial work is completely unacceptable. According to the Court, the boycott affected the judicial process and many litigants could not get legal representation in their cases in most courts.
Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew’s division bench took this step while hearing the case on Thursday. The court has issued notices to the office bearers and executive members of Shillong Bar Association and Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and sought their reply as to why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
Boycott of judicial work in protest against the Advocate General
The controversy started with the call of Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar to stay away from judicial work in protest. Officials and members associated with both the bar associations did not take part in regular judicial work in the courts in protest.
The mass boycott of lawyers affected the normal proceedings of the courts. The division bench of the High Court said that due to this step judicial functioning was disrupted and legal representation was not available to the litigants in most of the courts. According to the report, its effect was seen in most of the courts except Baghmara.
Taking this situation seriously, the court said that disrupting the judicial process due to any protest cannot be acceptable. However, the available information does not mention in detail the specific reasons for the protest against Advocate General Amit Kumar or the demands raised by the bar association.
High Court issued notices taking suo motu cognizance
Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew’s division bench on Thursday took suo motu cognizance of the case related to boycott of judicial work. Suo motu means that the court takes up a case for consideration on its own without a formal petition on the basis of available information or developments.
In this case the court took into account the impact of the boycott on judicial functioning. After this, notices were issued to the officials and executive members of both the bar associations.
In the notice, the concerned members have been asked to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. This process gives the concerned parties an opportunity to present their views. The issuance of notice does not mean that the persons concerned have already been held guilty of criminal contempt. Further action will depend on their response and the court’s decision.
Court expressed concern over obstruction in judicial process
The High Court termed the boycott of judicial work as completely unacceptable and expressed concern over its impact. The main emphasis of the court was that due to mass abstinence from work, the judicial system was affected and the people involved in the cases had to face problems.
The presence of lawyers and effective legal representation are important for hearing the cases pending in the courts. When members of a bar association collectively boycott judicial work, the cases of those who have no direct connection with the protest may also be affected.
For litigants, delay in hearing can mean additional expenses, wastage of time and delay in getting justice. In such a situation, maintaining the normal functioning of the courts is considered important for the judicial system.
The division bench’s action underlines the concern that the impact of any protest that disrupts the functioning of judicial institutions can be reviewed.
What are criminal contempt proceedings?
The purpose of the law relating to contempt of court is to protect the dignity of judicial institutions and the process of administration of justice. In contempt cases in India, the court can find that the conduct has obstructed judicial proceedings or adversely affected the administration of justice.
The scope of criminal contempt may include such acts which obstruct the judicial process or affect the administration of justice. However, it is for the court to decide in a particular case whether the conduct in question amounts to contempt under the law or not.
Meghalaya High Court has just sought response from the concerned officials and members in this matter. Issuance of notice is the initial judicial step. This makes it clear that the court wants to investigate this development and is giving an opportunity to the concerned parties to present their views.
In the further process, the court may consider the relevant replies and then decide whether to proceed with contempt proceedings or not.
Role of Bar Association and rights of litigants
Bar associations play an important role in raising issues related to lawyers’ professional interests, working conditions and justice system. Lawyers have the right to raise their demands and concerns in appropriate forums. But what impact the methods of mass protest have on judicial functioning and the people involved in the cases is also an important question.
The High Court’s concern in this case was mainly regarding obstruction in judicial work and litigants not getting legal representation. People who come to the courts depend on the judicial process to get their cases heard and for legal relief. Therefore, it is important to maintain a balance between protest and continuity of judicial work.
However, the available information does not include a detailed response from both bar associations. After the stand of the concerned organizations comes forward, the background of the dispute and the issues raised behind the boycott will be understood more clearly.
keeping an eye on further action
After the notice issued by the division bench of Meghalaya High Court, now the answers of the concerned officials and executive members will be important. The court will take further decisions on the basis of these answers and the facts related to the case.
For the time being, the Court has taken serious note of the impact of boycott of judicial work and has asked the parties concerned as to why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. It would not be appropriate to draw conclusions about the responsibility or possible punishment of the persons concerned before the final decision is reached.
The case raises questions regarding the balance between the normal functioning of judicial institutions, the bar association’s methods of protest, and the rights of those involved in litigation. In the coming time, the direction of this dispute will become clear from the further hearing of the court and the response of the parties concerned.