High court Bar body seeks chief justice’s transfer
Revokes Punjab advocate general’s membership for “working against opening of court”, Bar Council vetoes decision
CHANDIGARH : The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association on Monday demanded transfer of chief justice RS Jha over non-resumption of physical hearings in the court.
The association also revoked membership of Punjab advocate general Atul Nanda for allegedly working against physical opening of the court and acting against the Bar’s interests, a decision the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana stayed, terming it arbitrary.
Both the decisions were termed as unprecedented by many.
The association decided to suspend work for two more days and boycott hearings before the chief justice’s bench till physical hearings are resumed. Lawyers have been pressing for physical hearings that have been suspended since March 2020 in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak.
The HC administration has deferred hearings in cases listed for February to May and June. It, however, announced that three courts have been set up for physical hearings.
The association suspended work on Monday as well. Its general house met during the day and it was resolved that the Chief Justice of India and Union law ministry will be requested to immediately transfer the chief justice to any other high court.
The chief justice’s court shall be boycotted till physical hearings recommence completely or till he is transferred, the general house decided.
It was further resolved that the association’s executive committee will attend co-ordination meeting with only judges but not in the presence of government representatives such as advocates general, additional solicitor general or standing counsel of the Chandigarh administration.
It further decided that the members who attended hearing on Monday through videoconferencing will be removed as association members like the Punjab advocate general.
In the evening, the Bar council, a statutory body of lawyers from two states and Chandigarh, held an emergency meeting, saying it supported the association’s demand for resumption of physical hearings. But it stayed the association’s action against Nanda terming it “extremely unfair and harsh” and that there was no proper notice for the meeting or minimum quorum, as required.
It also said that his conduct has always been “appreciable and exemplary”.
The council maintained that Nanda had written to the HC administration on January 30 giving consent for physical hearings as the state’s top law officer.