A lawyers association in Chennai called for a court boycott on 11th March 2015. Reason: The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu recognized another recently-formed lawyers association. Court work in the city widely suffered on that day. Lawyers in other cities too boycott courts for some such reasons. A layman may ask, "If I feel someone wronged me, lawyers advise me to go to court and try a legal remedy. When I do that I have also to pay their fees. When lawyers or their associations feel wronged why don't they go to court, especially when they will also serve themselves free?"
In the the early years of the Madras High Court, law
practice in the High Court for local legal practitioners called 'vakils' was permitted only on its 'appellate side' - that is, only in those cases which were appeals from civil cases decided by lower courts which functioned outside Madras. The High Court did not allow vakils to appear on its prestigious 'original side' - that is, in civil cases that could be filed afresh in the High Court itself by people (called plaintiffs) wanting remedies against their opponents (called defendants). At that time only barristers, who studied law in England and were mostly Englishmen, could appear on the original side of the High Court and, as vakils did, they could also appear on its appellate side. Vakils were then asking to be allowed to practice on the original side also, and
finally succeeded in their demand in 1876.
Did they boycott courts to make the High Court right a wrong? No.
The website of the lawyers association which gave a boycott call for 11th
March 2015 proudly describes, in these words, how poor vakils of those days got that right: "With legal scholarship honed through university law education, the Vakils won their first victory when they wrested through a Full Bench decision in 1876 the right to practice under both jurisdictions of the Madras Courts"
Leave alone the traditions of the bar in any city. Think of persons who filed court cases,
either original ones or appeals. Spending
time in court campuses or worrying about cases in their minute details can be normal for lawyers
and judges - surely not for litigants who want an early judgement either way
and get on with their lives. Litigants who
pay court charges and lawyers’ fees want their cases to be decided fast, just as
hospitalized patients wish to be treated fast and discharged soon rather than be
lying on the hospital bed even for an hour more because doctors have struck
work.
Think of lawyers too whose cases are scheduled on a
day for which a boycott call is given but who wish to be on their work. Among them, lawyers who filed original cases
or appeals for their clients would and should be keener to do their job in
court that day and their voices should be heard on any proposal for a boycott
call for that day. So give an option to
lawyers for plaintiffs and appellants, i.e., lawyers for parties who filed
cases or appeals, whose cases are scheduled for a proposed boycott day, to
email their yes vote or no vote to the lawyers association on a strike proposal
– these emails should be automatically copied to a neutral agency or website,
which all stakeholders may verify. Also,
since a call for court boycott seriously affects litigants - who are not consulted
on the boycott – the voting lawyers’ approval may be taken as given only with a
yes vote by a two-thirds majority. A
major benefit in this method is that lawyers not having court work on a day do
not stall progress on court work of other lawyers, and clients do not suffer needless
adjournments or adverse orders by their lawyers’ forced absence in courts.
And finally, our Constitution rules that the law laid
down by the Supreme Court is binding and that all authorities shall help
implement it. The Supreme Court has also
prescribed tight parameters on the validity of lawyers’ boycott of courts - for
very exceptional circumstances and for a very limited time. Lawyers should feel this law in their bones –
who else needs to?
* * * *
*
Lawlessness amongst the lawyers, if what the news reports indicate are true, is on the rise and nowadays Madras High Court and Law College require more police forces than any other establishments in the the city. God only can save us if these things are allowed to continue.
ReplyDelete