Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

1

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 18239/2018

AFSHAN PRACHA Petitioner(s)


VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 09-05-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Petitioner(s) Ms.Afshan Pracha, Petitioner-in-person.


Mr.Sanjay Jain, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr.Aman Lekhi, ASG


Mr.Zoheb Hussain, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


O R D E R

Heard the petitioner-in-person.

The assertions made in the writ petition and the grounds

urged therein depict a sad and sorrowful scenario that has the

effect on the dignity and security of a practicing woman in various

courts in Delhi. The petitioner submits that she has been

humiliated by certain members of the Bar at Tis Hazari Court and

further the Court of the Judicial Officer, namely, Shri Prashant

Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.35, Tis Hazari

Courts, who came to her protection, has been boycotted and there

has been a strike.


Signature Not Verified

The petitioner would further submit that her statement


Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2018.05.09
17:51:09 IST
Reason:

under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is

required to be recorded and she is feeling scared to go to the


2

Court without police protection. According to her, her

apprehensions are not in the realm of illusion but in the sphere of

stark reality.

In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to respondent

Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for the present. That apart, we also direct

issue of notice to the Secretary, Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari

Court. He be impleaded as respondent No.6.

A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex-Capt. Harish

Uppal vs. Union of India and another, (2003) 2 SCC 45, has held

thus:

“35 In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no


right to go on strike or give a call for boycott,
not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is
required, can only be by giving press statements,
TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises
banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or
any colour arm bands, peaceful protest marches
outside and away from Court premises, going on
dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that
lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their
clients cannot refuse to attend Courts in
pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All
lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call
for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited
with any adverse consequences by the Association
or the Council and no threat or coercion of any
nature including that of expulsion can be held
out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar
Association can permit calling of a meeting for
purposes of considering a call for strike or
boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting
must be ignored. It is held that only in the
rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity
and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are
at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to
a protest abstention from work for not more than
one day. It is being clarified that it will be for
the Court to decide whether or not the issue
involves dignity or integrity or independence of
the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases
the President of the Bar must first consult the
Chief Justice or the District Judge before
Advocates decide to absent themselves from Court.
3

The decision of the Chief Justice or the District


Judge would be final and have to be abided by the
Bar. It is held that Courts are under no
obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are
on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all
Courts to go on with matters on their boards even
in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts
must not be privy to strikes or calls for
boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a
Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court
due to a strike call, he shall be personally
liable to pay costs which shall be in addition to
damages which he might have to pay his client for
loss suffered by him.

36) It is now hoped that with the above


clarifications, there will be no strikes and/or
calls for boycott. It is hoped that better sense
will prevail and self restraint will be exercised.
The petitions stand disposed off accordingly.”

In view of the aforesaid, we direct as follows:

(i) The petitioner shall be given adequate police

protection by the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi so

that her statement can be recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C.;

(ii) The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. shall be

recorded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala

House Court, New Delhi;

(iii) The security that shall be granted to the

petitioner should be the women police officers of

appropriate rank;

(iv) The Bar Association of Tis Hazari Court is restrained

from going on strike or participating in any kind of

boycott of any Court in Tis Hazari or any other Court.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to

the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court so that it can be


4

communicated to the concerned Bar Associations.

Mr.Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General shall

take steps to apprise the competent authority for providing the

security to the petitioner, as directed hereinabove.

The matter be listed on 11.05.2018 for further orders.

(Chetan Kumar ) (H.S.Parasher)


Court Master Assistant Registrar

S-ar putea să vă placă și