Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, April 28, 2024

CJI Must Take Suo Motu Cognizance As Urged By SC Bar Association

Posted in: Judiciary
Wed, Feb 14, 24, 11:39, 3 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9434
no circumstances be any justification for any citizen of India to indulge in the blocking of roads or blocking of rails or blocking of the sea routes under any circumstances

We need to be absolutely clear in our mind that there can be just no gainsaying that no matter how sacred the cause may be, there can under no circumstances be any justification for any citizen of India to indulge in the blocking of roads or blocking of rails or blocking of the sea routes under any circumstances as it definitely causes maximum inconveniences to others and so also tarnishes our global reputation to a very large extent thus denigrating our nation image and deals a huge blow to our economy as also trade and other vital matters get blocked completely!

It also merits just no reiteration that to exercise one’s own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered license to block roads, cause maximum damage to the roads and make temporary houses on roads as we saw last time when the farmers protested for several months in border areas of Delhi over a range of demands which clearly demonstrates that there is more to it than meets the eye. Why Supreme Court allowed such a huge protest by blocking of roads to Delhi which is the capital of India is truly most incomprehensible?

It must be asked: Which true national will ever support such a most atrocious haphazard manner of protest risking the life of many vulnerables due to which many old people and children die due to blockade and not getting medical aid in time and many have to face untold hardships by going through barbed fences in which women, old, weak and disabled people are worst affected? How can this be ever justified by anyone in the name of fighting to secure one right or the other? How can the lives and safety of so many other people be allowed to be held to ransom under the garb of right to protest?

How can it be conveniently ignored that some unscrupulous elements take advantage of it and indulge in acts of crime under the garb of the right to protest? How can it be just glossed over that last time more than 700 protesters died due to one reason or the other when large scale protests broke out during farmers protest in border areas of Delhi and adjoining regions? How can the life of innocents be allowed to be jeopardized and compromised under the garb of the right to protests?

Let us be very clear: To exercise one’s own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road, rail or any other public route under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconveniences to others for an inordinately long period of time. If Chief Justice of India will not take suo motu cognizance of such serious matter then who else will? This alone explains why the Supreme Court Bar Association of India has appealed to the CJI to take suo motu action and not allow things to go first from bad to worse and then from worse to worst!

It would be of paramount importance to note that none other than a very eminent and senior lawyer of Supreme Court and so also the Supreme Court Bar Association President – Dr Adish C Aggarwala has written a very hard-hitting letter to the Chief Justice of India – Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud to take suo motu action against the erring farmers for forcibly trying to enter Delhi in a bid to create nuisance and disturb the daily life of citizens.

It must be noted that the farmers long list of demands include – a legal guarantee for minimum support price (MSP), adoption of the Swaminathan Commission’s suggestions on agriculture, pensions for both farmers and farm labourers, waiver of farm debts, resolution of police cases, justice for the victims of the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, reinstatement of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, withdrawal from the World Trade Organization, compensation for families of farmers who perished during the previous protests of farmers among others!

To be sure, we need to note that the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) – Mr Adish C Aggarwala penned a simple, short and straightforward letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) – Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud urging him most seriously to take suo motu action against the farmers who were attempting to forcibly enter Delhi causing huge disruption and maximum inconvenience to the public. It was pointed out in this letter by Mr Adish that:
I am compelled to write this letter to bring to your kind notice that despite the best efforts of the Government of India to protect the interest of the farmers, some farmers are enroute to Delhi from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab and are gearing up for a large-scale protest in the national capital on February 13.

Needless to say, the letter also mentioned about the initial farmers protests that took place in 2021-2022. It was pointed out in this letter that:
Earlier, in 2021 and 2022, three Delhi borders with the neighbouring States remained blocked for several months due to a similar protest, causing hardship to the general public. It is also a matter of record that many persons died while trying to come to Delhi for better medical treatment but could not reach Delhi hospitals in time due to road blockades.

What’s more, we see that the letter then further added pointing out that:
In light of today’s farmers protest, Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh Police have heightened security at the Singhu, Ghazipur and Tikri borders, setting up nails and road barricades to deter vehicles transporting protesters from entering Delhi. Additionally, cranes and earthmovers are being employed to place large containers on the roads to obstruct their free passage into the Union Capital.

It is worth noting that in the letter, we see that the Supreme Court Bar Association President – Mr Adish C Aggarwala expressed clearly his most serious apprehensions observing that:
It is suspected that this protest is politically motivated ahead of the forthcoming Parliament election. He further minced just no words to say clearly that:
Even if the farmers have genuine demands, they don’t have the right to put the general public into hardship. Their right to protest should not be allowed to impede the common citizens’ right to lead their lives without any problem.

This is an appropriate moment for the Honourable Supreme Court to take action on its own initiative and ensure that these farmers do not disrupt public peace or cause significant inconvenience. How badly the people’s lives gets affected so hugely in the worst possible manner has been witnessed by all of us just a couple of years back during the farmers protests earlier and how violence broke out and even Red Fort was not spared nor our national flag which was thrown away by one of the protesters which cannot be ever justified under any circumstances!

It is worth noting that it is further pointed out in the letter by the Supreme Court Bar Association President – Mr Adish C Aggarwala that:
By not accepting the offer of the Government of India, suggested at last night’s talks, the so-called leaders of the farmers have decided to move to Delhi only to create problems to people of Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. If they are still adamant on protesting, they should protest in their native places.

It is worth paying full rapt singular attention that the President of Supreme Court Bar Association – Mr Adish then further added that given the current situation, the lawyers – not just those practicing in the Supreme Court but also those in the Delhi High Court, various Commissions, Tribunals and District Courts – will encounter significant hurdles in attending court proceedings. He rightly urged to the CJI that:
I request Your Lordship to issue requisite instructions to all concerned not to pass any adverse orders due to non-appearance in any matter listed before the above-mentioned courts till there are obstacles in free movement of the public on Delhi borders due to farmers’ agitation. He then very rightly concluded by urging humbly that:
I further request Your Lordship to take suo motu action against the erring farmers for forcibly trying to enter Delhi in a bid to create nuisance and disturb the daily life of citizens.

On a departing note, it must be said unequivocally that the CJI Dr DY Chandrachud must definitely take suo motu cognizance as has been so very sagaciously urged by the Supreme Court Bar Association President – Mr Adish C Aggarwala and not allow things to turn first from good to bad and then from, bad to worse and then finally from worse to worst! It is undeniable that the right to protest is a fundamental right of every citizen of India but this definitely cannot include the right to block road routes, rails routes and so also sea routes to pressurize unduly the Central Government to buckle to their huge demands!

It is definitely now high time and a strictest law needs to be enacted which would make it obligatory that under no circumstances can anyone be allowed to block roads or rail routes or any other routes like sea route which would undoubtedly cause maximum inconvenience to others and endanger the lives of many innocents which cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances! It is high time and CJI Dr DY Chandrachud must definitely now pay heed seriously to what the Supreme Court Bar Association President – Mr Adish C Aggarwala has so very rightly urged in his most enlightening letter! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

 

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top