The Supreme Court has recently concluded a contempt of court case involving former office-bearers of the Bharatpur Bar Association in Rajasthan.
The accused individuals were alleged to have obstructed the work of lawyers who chose not to participate in strikes and court boycotts.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha issued a warning, stating that the Court would take coercive action if any lawyer was prevented from working or expelled due to non-participation in strikes.
The Court warned in an order passed on July 10, “The concerned members of the Bar are placed on notice that this Court will be constrained to take recourse to the coercive arm of law, should any incident occur in the future. There shall be no impediment in the work of legal defense counsel.”
The case revolved around allegations that the petitioners, who were defense counsel providing legal aid, were obstructed from performing their duties by the bar association’s office-bearers because they opposed and weakened the association’s calls for strikes.
The Legal Aid Services Authority introduced a ‘Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme’ specifically for Bharatpur district.
Under this scheme, lawyers were engaged on a full-time basis to provide exclusive legal aid services to individuals accused or convicted of crimes.
However, when the recruitment process for the scheme commenced, the lawyers in Bharatpur protested against it.
The petitioners, namely advocates Purnaprakash Sharma, Puneet Garg, and Madhavendra Singh, continued working under the scheme and did not participate in the protest.
As a result, they received show cause notices for opposing and weakening the movement. When they refused to comply, they were suspended for not aligning themselves with the association.
The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, seeking the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the office-bearers of the bar association.
The Court subsequently sought responses from the respondent-office bearers.
After considering the undertakings that no further calls for strikes or impediments to the work of legal aid counsel would be made, and being informed that the petitioners and other similarly placed lawyers had their membership reinstated in the association, the Court closed the contempt proceedings.
