AKSHYA KUMAR SARANGI Vs. THE HIGH COURT ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned advocate for the petitioner and the Learned Advocate General, who appeared for the respondent no.3 State, the following directions are issued.

(2.) The Apex Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 45 directed, inter alia, as follows:- "45. Further, appropriate rules are required to be framed by the High Courts under Sec. 34 of the Advocates Act by making it clear that strike by advocate/advocates would be considered interference with the administration of justice and advocate/advocates concerned may be barred from practising before courts in a district or in the High Court. 46. Hence, it is directed that (a) all the Bar Associations in the country shall implement the resolution dated 29-9- 2002 passed by the Bar Council of India, and (b) under Sec. 34 of the Advocates Act, the High Courts would frame necessary rules so that appropriate action can be taken against defaulting advocate/advocates."

(3.) From the letter dated 5th Aug., 2015, issued by the Deputy Registrar(Administration) and Public Information Officer, the petitioner appears to have been informed pursuant to an application under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 that Rules under section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 have not been framed by this Court.