The Calcutta High Court recently warned additional public prosecutors (APPs) or public prosecutors (PPs) who were participating in strikes and preventing litigants, clerks, and lawyers from appearing in court of strict action.
A bench of acting Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that public prosecutors and APPs cannot go on strike and that anyone who does so will be fired.
“If a PP participates in a pen-down then he must be removed from his post. Please advice your (to counsels) clients accordingly, some adverse orders will come then nobody can save them. He has taken an oath of office after he became a lawyer. He owes a duty to the State…you don’t have a vested right, you are working as APP/PP based on government orders,” the bench directed.
The division bench was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Shibshankar Mahato, who claimed that proceedings before the sessions court under the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman, have been hampered since March 24, when APPs called for an indefinite strike to demand the removal of the PP for the district court.
Appearing for the State, Advocate Anirban Roy requested before the bench if the matter could be taken up after two days. The Court allowed the request and posted the case for further consideration on April 26.
On March 28, the APPs requested that the PP refrain from bringing matters before the court. The PP, however, refused, resulting in a violent brawl among the lawyers.
Despite receiving a representation from the Burdwan Bar Association (BBA), the district magistrate refused to remove the PP.
The right to free and fair administration of justice has been compromised as a result of the strike, according to the petitioner, by the personal interests of court officers.
According to the plea, the BBA called a meeting to address its members’ concerns about innocent litigants languishing in jail or police custody because no bail or trial hearings are being held in any of the sessions courts. However, the meeting produced no results.
As a result, the petitioner requested that the courts resume normal operation. He also requested the formation of a fact-finding committee to determine the source of the dispute.
