SEETHAMMA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To-day when the cases posted before the Court are called, no Advocate is present and no representation is made seeking adjournment of any of the cases posted before the Court. However, a resolution passed by the Bar Association, Bangalore, deciding to abstain from appearing in the Courts commencing from to-day for an indefinite period, as a mark of protest against the attrocities alleged to have been committed against a Member of the Bar hailing from Kerala State, who had come to Bangalore for discharging his professional duties, at a City Police Station, as set out in a complaint sent by the said Advocate to the Bar Association and also the subsequent death of the said Advocate under mysterious circumstances, has been sent by the Association, to Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

(2.) On an earlier occasion, when as a result of the call given by the Bangalore Bar Association to boycott the Courts on 10-2-1983 in protest against police atrocities against a lawyer in Uttar Pradesh, no lawyer attended the Courts, this Court has stated as under: 1983(2) KLC 54-55

(3.) In the circumstances, I am constrained to adjourn all the cases to 14-2-1983 so that litigants may not be put to any hardship or injury. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the President, Advocates' Association, Bangalore." Thereafter, till now such a method had not been resorted to. As once again the Bar Association has resorted to that method, I am constrained to reiterate the same on this occasion. It may be that there is full justification for the Members of the Bar to lodge a strong protest against the incident, but having regard to the weighty observations made by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, extracted above, it appears to me that in order to register protest against any incident of matter, there are well known constitutional methods of holding a meeting and passing a resolution or going in a peaceful procession or writing articles in the Press and the like. But the consequences of protest against alleged executive high handedness in the form of bundhs or boycotting of the Courts, falls on the administration of justice, in that, the working of the Courts gets paralysed and rendering of justice gets delayed and as a result the litigants suffer. The chariot of administration of justice can move only on two wheels, namely, the Bench and the Bar. If the members of the Bar do not function, whatever may be the reason, the administration of justice comes to a grinding halt. Therefore, the matter for serious consideration by the members of the Bar Association is, whether, having due regard to the exhortation by Dr. Ambedkar, it is not appropriate that they should resort to constitutional methods for registering their protest against any matter, instead of resorting to the bundhs of the Courts and thereby set a good example for emulation by other Sections of the society? However, in view of the resolution passed by the Bar Association and also bearing in mind the injury that is likely to be caused to the litigants by passing any ex parte order, I hereby order that all the cases posted to-day be adjourned to 2nd September, 1987, reluctantly and not without expressing my anguish.