R CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unbelievable but a hard fact, that this Writ Petition filed in furtherance of an endeavour to show the door to Sri Justice C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, a Judge of this Court, originates from anger and annoyance of the Petitioner-Advocate, arising out of refusal by the Judge to be contributory to a call of boycott of the Courts, given by Telangana Advocates Joint Action Committee on 13-09-2010, in support of demand for 42% of total number of posts in the Government services including appointments of Law Officers in the Courts for Telangana-ites. The grouse so registered is reflected by the writ Petitioner in the writ petition itself, relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder:

(2.) To enforce the strike, protestors-Advocates resorted to vandalism, coercing well-meaning Advocates interested in peaceful functioning of the courts to boycott the courts, damaged the files, furniture fittings and every thing, harassed and abused the Judges and all those who came in their way, apparently derogatory to the Constitution and the laws, incapacitating the judge even to protect the law abiding Advocates and litigants who appeared in his court despite call for boycott and targeted the court of Sri Justice C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy for three days consecutively. Office of the Registry was also damaged. Code of conduct was flagrantly violated.

(3.) Despite revelation of shocking and horrifying events by none other than the Petitioner himself in this writ petition and those mentioned in the news reports relied upon by him, coupled with a series of events detailed in the report of the Registrar General High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the judge stood by interests of justice and left no stone unturned to discourage unethical and illegal omissions and commissions of violators of law so as to restore normalcy in the court, yet Petitioner, a practicing Advocate of the Supreme Court, has no regrets to express on the role of some of the Advocates who rendered the dignity and independence of the Bar and Bench a casualty. What an apathy qua the interests of the institution on the part of the Petitioner, who being a practicing Advocate is not expected to be oblivious of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, inter alia, prohibiting the Bar Council/Bar Association from convening meetings, even to consider giving a call for boycott of the courts and commanding the Advocates not to abide by any call of strike, yet, Petitioner pleads for discontinuation of the judge, impliedly because he rejected the request of protestors in the robes of Advocates to sympathies with them by conceding to their demand to stop the proceedings of the court. Whether this kind of approach of the Petitioner amounts to misconduct of an Advocate, we refrain from expression of opinion, leaving it open to be embarked upon by the Bar Council of India or the State Bar council, as the case may be.