The Calcutta High Court today disposed of a plea seeking action against additional public prosecutors (APPs) who were participating in strikes and restraining litigants, clerks, and lawyers from appearing in a district court.
The counsel for the State at the outset of today’s hearing submitted a report informing the Bench that normalcy has been restored and that the district court was functioning smoothly now.
In light of above the report, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya disposed of the plea.
The Court remarked to the counsel that “If your clients don’t fall in line, you remove everybody. These are all prestigious posts, you must work in a manner where your entire bio data, and CV is improved…The moment you get to the office, how you should act, that is most important. You must live up to the appointment.”
The Court heard a public interest litigation (PIL) claiming proceedings before the sessions court under the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman hampered since March 24, after APPs called for an indefinite strike seeking the removal of the public prosecutor (PP) for the district court.
At the last hearing, the Court noted that the PP and APPs can’t resort to strikes and any person doing so will have to be removed from their posts.
Counsel for the State had also to submit an action taken report.
On March 28, the APPs asked the PP not to conduct matters before the court. However, the PP refused to do so, resulting in a violent fight among the lawyers. The district magistrate refused to remove the PP even after the Burdwan Bar Association addressed a representation to him.
The petitioner stated that the right to free & fair administration of justice has fallen prey to the personal interests of officers of the court.
The plea stated that the Burdwan Bar Association called for a meeting to address the issues of its members regarding the fact that innocent litigants are languishing in jail or police custody since no bail or trial hearings are being conducted in any of the sessions courts.
However, the meeting yielded nothing fruitful.
The petition stated that “The common litigants same as the petitioner without any fault of their own have been victims of unwanted circumstances and their matters are going unrepresented in the Court of law.”
Thus, the petitioner prayed for directions to restore the normal functioning of the courts. He also sought the constitution of a fact-finding committee to identify the source of the dispute.
