Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Afshan Pracha vs Union Of India on 9 May, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 18239/2018
AFSHAN PRACHA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 09-05-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s) Ms.Afshan Pracha, Petitioner-in-person.
Mr.Sanjay Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr.Aman Lekhi, ASG
Mr.Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard the petitioner-in-person.
The assertions made in the writ petition and the grounds urged therein depict a sad and sorrowful scenario that has the effect on the dignity and security of a practicing woman in various courts in Delhi. The petitioner submits that she has been humiliated by certain members of the Bar at Tis Hazari Court and further the Court of the Judicial Officer, namely, Shri Prashant Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.35, Tis Hazari Courts, who came to her protection, has been boycotted and there has been a strike.
Signature Not Verified
The petitioner would further submit that her statement Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.05.09 17:51:09 IST Reason: under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required to be recorded and she is feeling scared to go to the 2 Court without police protection. According to her, her apprehensions are not in the realm of illusion but in the sphere of stark reality.
In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for the present. That apart, we also direct issue of notice to the Secretary, Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Court. He be impleaded as respondent No.6.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, (2003) 2 SCC 45, has held thus:
“35 In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend Courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. 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. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocates decide to absent themselves from Court.3
The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be in addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him.
36) It is now hoped that with the above
clarifications, there will be no strikes and/or
calls for boycott. It is hoped that better sense
will prevail and self restraint will be exercised.
The petitions stand disposed off accordingly.”
In view of the aforesaid, we direct as follows:
(i) The petitioner shall be given adequate police protection by the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi so that her statement can be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.;
(ii) The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. shall be recorded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Court, New Delhi;
(iii) The security that shall be granted to the petitioner should be the women police officers of appropriate rank;
(iv) The Bar Association of Tis Hazari Court is restrained from going on strike or participating in any kind of boycott of any Court in Tis Hazari or any other Court.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court so that it can be 4 communicated to the concerned Bar Associations.
Mr.Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General shall take steps to apprise the competent authority for providing the security to the petitioner, as directed hereinabove.
The matter be listed on 11.05.2018 for further orders.
(Chetan Kumar ) (H.S.Parasher) Court Master Assistant Registrar