Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court on Wednesday expressed its discontent with the ongoing strike by the lawyers, which has been in effect since August 30. The lawyers have refused to work across the state in protest against the police lathicharge on lawyers in Hapur district.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra, in a petition filed by one Dinesh Kumar, observed, “Cases are not disposable commodities to be treated as mere statistics. Their purpose is not to provide a livelihood for lawyers or provide a monthly disposal quota to judges. Each case that comes before a judge, has an element of a human problem concerning the life, liberty, livelihood, family business, profession, work, shelter, safety and security of the citizen.”
“Many of the litigants belonging to the downtrodden and weaker sections of society are defenceless, poor and ignorant. Their silent cry for a civilized human solution to their grievances and problems, and for a level playing field is a call for justice, to be felt and heard not only by the judges but also by the lawyers, the latter, unfortunately, not hearing this cry, whatever may be the reason which, certainly, cannot have more weight than the weight of tears and pain of litigants, who have reposed all faith in our judicial system and the institution of justice,” the court observed.
The court said that it has several options when lawyers are abstaining from judicial work, including dismissing a case when no lawyer is representing its client, but it is not passing any such order and only adjourning the case.
“However, this court, exercising judicial restraint, refrains itself from taking any such step or making any such observation, as it may add to further woes to the litigants, who have reposed confidence and faith in the institution of justice and may also result in further chaos or clash,” the court further observed. The court fixed October 13 as the next date of hearing in this case.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra, in a petition filed by one Dinesh Kumar, observed, “Cases are not disposable commodities to be treated as mere statistics. Their purpose is not to provide a livelihood for lawyers or provide a monthly disposal quota to judges. Each case that comes before a judge, has an element of a human problem concerning the life, liberty, livelihood, family business, profession, work, shelter, safety and security of the citizen.”
“Many of the litigants belonging to the downtrodden and weaker sections of society are defenceless, poor and ignorant. Their silent cry for a civilized human solution to their grievances and problems, and for a level playing field is a call for justice, to be felt and heard not only by the judges but also by the lawyers, the latter, unfortunately, not hearing this cry, whatever may be the reason which, certainly, cannot have more weight than the weight of tears and pain of litigants, who have reposed all faith in our judicial system and the institution of justice,” the court observed.
The court said that it has several options when lawyers are abstaining from judicial work, including dismissing a case when no lawyer is representing its client, but it is not passing any such order and only adjourning the case.
“However, this court, exercising judicial restraint, refrains itself from taking any such step or making any such observation, as it may add to further woes to the litigants, who have reposed confidence and faith in the institution of justice and may also result in further chaos or clash,” the court further observed. The court fixed October 13 as the next date of hearing in this case.
About The Author
