Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The division bench of Calcuuta HC comprised of Justice Jaymala Bagchi and Justice Suvra Ghosh denounced the conduct of the lawyers who had called for a strike. The Court said that prompt steps would be taken against the lawyers who obstructed the police, Judges and other public servants from carrying out their duties.
While hearing for the consideration of a bail application under the provisions of Sec 439 of CrPC, the Court was informed that the police could not present the original case diary as they were being obstructed by the lawyers at strike.
Regarding this, the HC relied to the observations held by the Supreme Court in the following cases:
(i) Hussain v Union of India 2017 5 SCC 702 where the SC identified that the denial to work by lawyers, frequent strikes and condolence references followed by suspension of Court proceedings are one of the prime reasons of delay in the disposal of criminal cases.
(ii) Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 held that the Constitutional Bench observed that the bench of lawyers had no right to go on a strike. Only in the rarest of cases where the integrity of the Bar was a stake, a protest could be done for a maximum of one day after the District Judge has given permission in the matter.
In the instant case, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Paschim Midinapur to enquire into the matter. The Superintendent was to take appropriate steps such that all public servants could discharge their duties freely. The HC warned that any obstruction caused in the discharge of duties by Judges, police personnels, or other public servants would attract charges under cognizable offences and immediate steps will be taken.
The HC scheduled the next hearing on 08/01/20 when the Superintendent of police shall submit his report on the situation.
Aijul Gharami v. State of W.B., CRM No. 12209 of 2019
86540
103860
630
114
59824