Bombay High Court Holds That Boycott of Courts by Lawyers for Demand of Bench at Pune/Kolhapur Constitutes Criminal Contempt. The Court ruled that abstention from court work and calls for boycott by Bar Associations to pressurize the government for establishment of a bench amounts to interference with the administration of justice and is criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment arises from a suo moto criminal contempt petition initiated by the Bombay High Court and a connected writ petition filed by Manoj Oswal. The core issue was whether the decision of various Bar Associations in Maharashtra to abstain from court work and call for a boycott of court proceedings to demand the establishment of a bench of the Bombay High Court at Pune or Kolhapur amounts to criminal contempt. The High Court, on the administrative side, received a note from the Registrar (Judicial-I) on 30 June 2015 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the office bearers and members of the Pune Bar Association for calling an indefinite strike that paralyzed the justice system. The Chief Justice directed the initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings, which were placed before a bench presided by Justice A.S. Oka. The court framed the issue as whether such boycott and calls for strike constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court analyzed the nature of the lawyers' actions, noting that they had resorted to a strike to pressurize the government, which directly interfered with the administration of justice. The court held that while lawyers have a right to protest, it must be exercised in a manner that does not obstruct the functioning of courts. Boycotting courts and calling for strikes to achieve demands, even if legitimate, amounts to criminal contempt as it scandalizes the court and undermines its authority. The court emphasized that the administration of justice is a sacred duty and cannot be held to ransom by any group. The judgment concluded that the actions of the Bar Associations in calling for and participating in the boycott constituted criminal contempt. The court, however, did not impose any punishment but issued a stern warning and directed the Bar Associations to desist from such practices in the future. The writ petition was disposed of in light of the contempt proceedings.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Boycott of Courts - Sections 2(c), 12, 14 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The issue was whether lawyers' boycott of courts to demand a bench at Pune/Kolhapur constitutes criminal contempt - The Court held that such boycott and calls for strike interfere with the administration of justice and amount to criminal contempt, as they scandalize the court and obstruct the course of justice (Paras 1-10).

B) Contempt of Court - Right to Protest - Reasonable Restrictions - Sections 2(c), 12 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Court considered whether lawyers have a right to protest through boycott - Held that while lawyers have a right to protest, it must be exercised without interfering with the administration of justice; boycott of courts is not a legitimate form of protest and amounts to contempt (Paras 11-20).

C) Contempt of Court - Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings - Procedure - Sections 14, 15 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Court examined the procedure for initiating suo moto contempt proceedings - Held that the High Court can initiate suo moto contempt on its own motion or on a report by the Registrar, and the proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the decision and/or action of members of various Bar Associations of abstaining from court work and the acts of office bearers calling upon members to abstain from court work or boycott court proceedings in support of demand for establishment of a bench of this Court at Pune/Kolhapur amount to criminal contempt.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court held that the boycott of courts and calls for strike by Bar Associations to demand a bench at Pune/Kolhapur constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, no punishment was imposed; the Court issued a warning and directed the Bar Associations to desist from such practices. The writ petition was disposed of.

Law Points

  • Criminal contempt
  • boycott of courts
  • interference with administration of justice
  • lawyer's strike
  • right to protest
  • Contempt of Courts Act
  • 1971
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017:BHC-AS:24929-DB

Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.3 of 2015 and Civil Writ Petition No.6093 of 2015

2017-09-15

A.S. Oka, Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai

2017:BHC-AS:24929-DB

Dr. F.R. Shaikh, Sachin Suryakant Punde, Sandeep Shripad Koregave, Tejpal Shrikant Ingale, Shailesh Dhanjay Chavan, Harshad Bhadbhade, Saurabh Butala, Umesh R. Mankapure, Vinod Sangvikar, Rajshekhar S. Alange, Bushan Walimbe, Prashant Bhavake, Nilesh Wable, Kushal Mor, Ms Juhi Mehrotra, Manish Pabale, S.R. Shinde, Sudam Kale, Makarand Bakre

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suo moto criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court against Bar Associations for calling a strike to demand establishment of a bench at Pune/Kolhapur, and a connected writ petition.

Remedy Sought

The High Court sought to determine whether the boycott and strike by lawyers amounts to criminal contempt and to take appropriate action.

Filing Reason

The Registrar (Judicial-I) submitted a note on 30 June 2015 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against office bearers and members of Pune Bar Association for calling an indefinite strike that paralyzed the justice system.

Previous Decisions

The Chief Justice directed initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings on 2 July 2015.

Issues

Whether the decision and action of Bar Associations to abstain from court work and call for boycott in support of demand for a bench at Pune/Kolhapur amounts to criminal contempt.

Submissions/Arguments

The State submitted that the boycott by lawyers interfered with the administration of justice. The Bar Associations argued that they have a right to protest and the boycott was a legitimate form of protest.

Ratio Decidendi

Boycott of courts and calls for strike by lawyers to pressurize the government for a demand, even if legitimate, amounts to criminal contempt as it interferes with the administration of justice and scandalizes the court. The right to protest does not extend to obstructing the functioning of courts.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue involved in these Petitions is 'whether the decision and/or the action of members of various Bar Associations of abstaining from the Court work and the acts of office bearers of the Bar Associations/Action Committee of the Advocates calling upon the members of the Bar to abstain from the Court work or boycott the Court proceedings in support of their demand for establishment of a bench of this Court at Pune/Kolhapur amount to a criminal contempt ?'

Procedural History

On 30 June 2015, the Registrar (Judicial-I) submitted a note to the Chief Justice seeking initiation of contempt proceedings. On 2 July 2015, the Chief Justice directed initiation of suo moto criminal contempt proceedings, which were placed before a bench presided by Justice A.S. Oka. The matter was heard along with Civil Writ Petition No.6093 of 2015. Submissions were heard on 27 February 2017, and judgment was pronounced on 15 September 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 2(c), 12, 14, 15
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Holds That Boycott of Courts by Lawyers for Demand of Bench at Pune/Kolhapur Constitutes Criminal Contempt. The Court ruled that abstention from court work and calls for boycott by Bar Associations to pressurize the government for e...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Cooperative Bank's Petition Against Setting Aside of Ex Parte Award Against Principal Borrower. Principal Borrower Cannot Participate in Proceedings Without Depositing Loan Amount.