VIJAY KUMAR MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE on this writ petition, Mr. Mukesh Prasad, Advocate, was arguing, a delegation of lawyers, young in age, entered the Court room. They were telling the lawyer who was arguing to cease his submission and intimating the Court that the Bar was on strike. On an inquiry from the Court they gave their names as Messrs. A. N. Singh, Anumesh Chatterji. D. P. Singh, C. S. Chaturvedi. Maasood Ahmad, S. P. Shukla, Vijai Jaiswal and Ramendra Shukla, Advocates. They were beckoning counsel for the petitioner to get out of the Court room. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances clearly, was perplexed as he knew not what to do; whether to remain in Court and continue his submission or give in to the request couched as an intimidation to abandon the Bar of the Court and succumb to the 'request" of the striking lawyers and go out of the Court room.

(2.) WHAT happened today also happened on Friday last. WHATever happened on Friday last is recorded on the writ petition as an order of this Court. It is the writ petition in re. the matter of G. K. Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others. The order of the Court in that writ petition reads :

(3.) ONE thing is clear and on this there is no doubt that no one can ask a Court convened to discharge judicial business to rise unless it does so itself. To strike at the Courts, 'is gross contempt. It is ex facie contempt. But, the Court will not deal with the situation today. All the lawyers who are before the Court today and whose names have been recorded in this order, are young and may be, are not well-versed with the complexities of what constitutes 'criminal contempt when the administration of justice is inters fered with. Today, they are illeguipped to give their defence and possibly may not be aware that justification may not be a good defence. To judge them today, notwithstanding that they have committed grievous errors in not permitting a Court system to function, may not be fair. They are not alone in what they do. For whatever has taken place, each office bearer of the Bar Association owes an explanation to the Court whether it is the President, the Secretary, the Vice President, the members of the Governming Council or other office bearers whoever they might be. la these circumstances, these young lawyers and all those who brought this situation in not permitting the Courts to function are answerable to the Court system.