SUNDARADAS Vs. SUBORDINATE JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. B.SUBHASHAN REDDY This is a pro bono publico filed by the President of Kuzhithurai Bar Association. He was also a former member of the State Legislative Assembly. He is aggrieved by the notice of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai dated 20th March 2003, which reads that Advocates' boycott, which is going on, is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in EX-CAPT.HARISH UPPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR (2003 I L.W (Crl.) page 82), and as such to avoid inconvenience to the litigant public all plaint, written statement, vakalth etc. shall be filed before him in the open Court itself daily by 11.00 a.m. Hitherto, there was a box system, and that is dispensed with temporarily till the boycott is withdrawn. This is only to facilitate the litigant public, who are facing inconvenience because of the boycott call given by the advocates.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the President of the Kuzhithurai Bar Association, is not able to persuade his voters/lawyers to withdraw the boycott. Boycott is not only unprofessional, but is also unethical, and is expressly prohibited by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land, and which has been referred to by the Subordinate Judge in the impugned notice.

(3.) We questioned the very locus of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition and as to what is the interest he or the advocate community has for the litigant public when they are boycotting the Courts. An Advocate who boycotts the Court or the President of the Bar Association who represents the Advocates boycotting the Courts, has got absolutely no locus to file any writ petition of this sort, and in fact, filing of this writ petition is an abuse of process of the Court and is deprecated.