ISHWAR SHANDILYA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advocates have been boycotting Courts on all Saturdays, for the past more than 35 years, in the entire District of Dehradun, and in several parts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar districts. The genesis of this peculiar form of protest is traceable to Western Uttar Pradesh, of which the aforesaid districts formed part of, before the State of Uttarakhand was created on 09.11.2000. Advocates from Western Uttar Pradesh have been on strike on all Saturdays, for the past three and half decades, in pursuit of their demand that a High Court Bench be established in this region. This problem, which commenced in these parts more than 15 years before the State of Uttarakhand came into being, continues to prevail in several parts of the aforesaid Districts of the State of Uttarakhand for the past nearly two decades even after creation of the State. The Rule of law is being, thereby, undermined. (Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr., 2003 2 SCC 45; and R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 2019 AIR(SC) 849).

(2.) The Law Commission in its 266th Report, after analyzing the data on loss of working days on account of strikes, opined that the conduct of advocates, in boycotting Courts, affects the functioning of Courts, and contributes to the ever mounting pendency of cases. The information sent by the High Court to the Law Commission, with respect to the State of Uttarakhand for the years 2012-2016, showed that, in Dehradun District, Advocates were on strike for 455 days during 2012-2016 (on an average, 91 days per year). In Haridwar District, 515 days (103 days a year) were wasted on account of strikes. (Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 AIR(SC) 3635; and Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 8 SCC 335). The Law Commission, thereafter, noted that strike by advocates, or their abstinence from Courts, varied from local, national to international issues, having no relevance to the working of the Courts, and were seldom for justifiable reasons. To mention a few, bomb blast in a Pakistan school, amendments to Sri Lanka's Constitution, inter-state river water disputes, attack on/murder of an advocate, earthquake in Nepal, condoling the death of near relatives of advocates, expressing solidarity to advocates of other State Bar Associations, moral support to movements by social activists, heavy rains, religious occasions such as shraadh, Agrasen Jayanti, etc and even for kavi- sammelans. (Krishnakant Tamrakar, 2018 AIR(SC) 3635; and Mahipal Singh Rana, 2016 8 SCC 335). To add to this long list of flimsy reasons for resorting to strikes, is, as is evident from the material placed on record before us, the strike on 25.02.2013 as the Dehradun Collectorate had a holiday on account of Sri Ravidas Jayanti; and on 29.05.2015, because the railway station was shifted from Dehradun to Harrawala.

(3.) In Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar districts of the State of Uttarakhand, there are frequent strikes, seriously obstructing access to justice to needy litigants. Even cases of persons languishing in jail / judicial custody are delayed on that account. By every strike, irreversible damage is caused to the judicial system, particularly to those who are denied access thereto. Tax payers' money is wasted on account of judicial and public time being lost. No one is being held accountable for such loss and harassment. (Krishnakant Tamrakar, 2018 AIR(SC) 3635).