Strike by lawyers and STRIKE by JUDGES! Nobody is corrupt or Hypocrite in India.

Law Books in Shelf.

                             Image © Sandeep Bhalla

Strike by lawyers is illegal in India:

Supreme court of India has held, in its various judgment, that strike of work by lawyers is illegal. No Bar Council or Bar Association can call for strike and if it does, disobedience shall not be misconduct. Further client can claim compensation from lawyer if he suffers due to strike. It appears that this rule do not apply to Lawyers after they become judge.

STRIKE by JUDGES!

This is about Punjab & Haryana High Court In India. On 19.11.2004 it was reported by The Hindu as under:

“The Shivalik hills, where Karoran village is situated, have highly erodable soil and constitute one of the most fragile ecosystems in the country. As overgrazing and mutilation by the villagers would cause soil erosion, which would lead to floods and consequently failure of crops in the plains, closure of the hills under the Indian Forest Act by declaring them a forest area was considered. The Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900, is an instance of State legislation that imposes suitable restrictions on the use of the hills for non-forest purposes. The Central law, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, was enacted to check further deforestation and consequent ecological imbalance.
The Bench found that the land “owned” by Sandhu and his family and the companies floated by them were part of the total area of 3,700 acres (1,480 ha) of Karoran village notified under the PLPA. Despite this unambiguous status of the land, Sandhu went on “owning” the land by asserting that it was agricultural land as per revenue records. The Bench revealed how on a single day, June 28, 1995, the records were changed to show the ownership of the land in favour of Sandhu and his associates. (Source url: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2123/stories/20041119003303800.htm)

Thus the court ordered closure of Golf Course. Some of judges were also given membership of the club. It included some High Court Judges. On April 2, 2004, Chief Justice Roy issued notices to the two judges, Justice Viney Mittal and Justice Virender Singh, who had accepted ‘ex-officio’ membership of the resort, they went on mass leave with 23 more judges. Justice Singhvi was the Senior most judge after Chief Justice. Continue reading

Justice “FOREVER”

Article 18 of Constitution of India is  as under:

“18. Abolition of titles.—(1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.

(2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.

(3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.

(4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.”  (Italics added)

From the use of words “military or academic” above it is clear that use of Doctor or Professor or Engineer or Major etc. is permissible but retired judges continue to use the expression ‘JUSTICE’ as a prefix to their name. The retired Chief Justice also uses Justice as prefix and not the Chief Justice. The question is can they use this prefix like a title after they demit their office? And is it Constitutional? I am open to ideas! But the question requires a debate.

The real problem will arise if somebody repeats Late M.C. Chagla and becomes a Minister or Governor after retirement or leaving the office. Then clearly he would not use this prefix as it would conflict with the official title.

© Sandeep Bhalla