Judicial function cannot be bullied: SC

New Delhi, Nov 19: The Supreme Court has severely criticised the Delhi High Court for failing to protect the lower judiciary from pressure t...

New Delhi, Nov 19: The Supreme Court has severely criticised the Delhi High Court for failing to protect the lower judiciary from pressure tactics of advocates who had boycotted the court of an additional district judge.

“Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel,” a division Bench comprising Justice S Saghir Ahmed and Justice K Thomas observed.

“Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof,” the court said.

Story continues below this ad

It said the High Courts were duty bound to insulate judicial functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear.

The case arose from an application filed by the counsel of a litigant for transfer of the case from the court of additional district judge S N Dhingra saying he could not appearbefore the court as the Delhi Bar Association has boycotted appearance of its members before the said court.

When Dhingra rejected the application saying there was no provision in law allowing transfer of the case on this ground, a revision was filed in the Delhi High Court and the same was entertained by a single judge. The Apex court said, “in our view the High Court has committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision petition.”

“We unhesitatingly conclude that the High Court has committed grave error in entertaining the revision petition and passing the impugned order,” the Bench said and quashed the revisional proceedings before the High Court.

Story continues below this ad

Expressing its unhappiness, the bench noted, “no court is obliged to adjourn a case because of the strike call given by any association of advocates or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or any particular court.

“It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed with the judicial business during court hours. No court shouldyield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating,” it added.

If any counsel did not want to appear in a particular court, that too for justifiable reasons, professional decorum and etiquette require him to give up his engagement in that court so that the party could engage another counsel, the court said. It said, “but retaining the brief of his client and at the same time abstaining from appearing in that court, that too not on any particular day on account of some personal inconvenience of the counsel but as a permanent feature, is unprofessional as also unbecoming of the status of an advocate.”