Calcutta HC lawyers extend strike

Kolkata: Lawyers of Calcutta High Court protesting against the shortage of judges have extended their strike till April 18. With this, the duration of their cease-work, which started on February 19, will complete two months. The legal fraternity is divided over whether the strike amounted to contempt of court.

“The cease-work will continue till February 18, after which we will hold a meeting to discuss the next course of action,” Uttam Majumdar, president of the Calcutta High Court Bar Association, told The Hindu after a meeting of the association on Tuesday. He also said that two other lawyers’ organisations, the Bar Library Club and Incorporated Law Society, have supported the extension of the cease-work. At present there are 33 judges at the Calcutta High Court instead of the sanctioned strength of 72.

Speaking to The Hindu, former Supreme Court judge K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan argued that lawyers cannot go on strike as there is a Supreme Court judgement against it.

“Whatever may be the issue, the interest of the litigants is paramount. Any interference in the administration of justice is contempt of court,” said Justice Radhakrishnan.

The Supreme Court, in its judgement in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India & Anr (another) in December 17, 2002, had stated that lawyers “have no right” to go on strike.

Citing the same judgement, former Supreme Court judge Asok Kumar Ganguly said that “there is a Supreme Court judgement against it (lawyers going on strike). So the cease work at Calcutta High Court can be liable for contempt of court.” Justice Ganguly described it as “suicidal and counter productive.”

However, former Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur said that the “lawyers’ cease-work indicates the magnitude of the problem (shortage of judges)…[it is] not very easy to say whether it is contempt of court.”

Even as Mr. Majumdar, president of the Bar Association, defended the cease-work, stating that they were doing it for a “noble cause and in the rarest of rare situations”, several litigants at the court expressed their reservations against it.

“Our PIL regarding a chit fund has been pending before the Calcutta High Court since September 2015, and the strike by lawyers has further delayed the case,” said Prasenjit Pahari, a small-savings agent from Paschim Medinipur district.

Another litigant, Gopal Sardar, a businessman from Kolkata, said that his “case regarding a tender dispute has been pending at the court for six years and the cease-work has put him in a spot.”