Kolkata: A section of lawyers on Wednesday staged a brief Oppose In front of the Acting Chief Justice’s court Rajesh Bindal Seeking clarity on assigning cases to judges, even if Calcutta High Court Bar Association Pledged to continue pursuing their cases in all courts as usual.
The agitating lawyers, who have not been attending the judicial proceedings in the Acting Chief Justice’s court since Tuesday afternoon, also alleged lack of logistics. Calcutta High Court For virtual hearing of cases.
The protest was briefly held by some agitating lawyers as a five-judge bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing PILs on the post-poll violence in West Bengal.
The protest was not called by any of the three associations – the Bar Association, the Bar Library Club and any Corporate Law Society – Representation of Advocates in High Court.
The Calcutta High Court Bar Association resolved in the general meeting held in virtual mode on Tuesday evening that its members would be present in the courts of all the judges of the High Court.
It noted that the members were of the view that when the normal working conditions of the Court are resuming, “the members of the Bar should not refrain from taking part in judicial proceedings before any Hon’ble Judge.”
The meeting resolved to “attend their respective duties before the Hon’ble Court for the benefit of the plaintiff public” and said that the members of the Bar Association would review the situation after 15 days.
Appreciating the decision of bar association members to join their duties before the court, West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar tweeted: “Dialogue and deliberation is the essence of constitutionalism and the rule of law, both upholding democratic values. important to keep.”
Lawyers who did not participate in the judicial proceedings in the court of Acting Chief Justice Bindal alleged “violation of the appellate side rules by the administrative decision of the Acting Chief Justice” and “deficiencies” in logistics for virtual hearing of cases.
A committee of five senior judges, which met representatives of the three associations on Monday, agreed to extend the court’s working hours by half an hour and also allow hybrid hearings, in which lawyers have virtual presence in front of the court. There will be an option to appear. mode or physically.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya had on July 19 issued a case in which he passed caustic observations in an order on connectivity issues during virtual hearings of cases while referring it to a division bench by the acting chief justice. Reservation was expressed, that of “master of the roster” from his court.
Troubled by connectivity issue during hearing in virtual mode, Justice Bhattacharya On July 16, the Central Project Coordinator of the High Court was directed to show cause in writing as to why action should not be taken against the High Court Administration including the Registrar General and the Central Project Coordinator, especially for criminal contempt of court. Continuous interference in virtual hearings in court due to connectivity issues.
The reply to the show cause notice was filed on the same day as directed.
After the matter was referred to a division bench, Justice Bhattacharya, in an order on 19 July, said that at no time, he should ever be approached by the Registrar General or “Acting Chief Justice through the Secretary of his Lordship or the OSD (officer).” special duty) either seeking my consent or at least having the courtesy to inform me about such assignment,” he said, negating his judicial order in an administrative capacity.
“I have serious doubts about the transparency of the judicial system in our court in view of the above series of events,” Justice Bhattacharya said in the order.
He said the power of assignment, arising out of the concept of “master of roster”, “confines the administrative power of the Chief Justice to delegate specific types of matters to specific benches, which may be exercised by the RG or even That cannot be done at the will of the caretaker. Chief Justice.”
The High Court administration has filed a special leave petition.SLP) before Supreme court Challenging the order of Justice Bhattacharya
The agitating lawyers, who have not been attending the judicial proceedings in the Acting Chief Justice’s court since Tuesday afternoon, also alleged lack of logistics. Calcutta High Court For virtual hearing of cases.
The protest was briefly held by some agitating lawyers as a five-judge bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing PILs on the post-poll violence in West Bengal.
The protest was not called by any of the three associations – the Bar Association, the Bar Library Club and any Corporate Law Society – Representation of Advocates in High Court.
The Calcutta High Court Bar Association resolved in the general meeting held in virtual mode on Tuesday evening that its members would be present in the courts of all the judges of the High Court.
It noted that the members were of the view that when the normal working conditions of the Court are resuming, “the members of the Bar should not refrain from taking part in judicial proceedings before any Hon’ble Judge.”
The meeting resolved to “attend their respective duties before the Hon’ble Court for the benefit of the plaintiff public” and said that the members of the Bar Association would review the situation after 15 days.
Appreciating the decision of bar association members to join their duties before the court, West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar tweeted: “Dialogue and deliberation is the essence of constitutionalism and the rule of law, both upholding democratic values. important to keep.”
Lawyers who did not participate in the judicial proceedings in the court of Acting Chief Justice Bindal alleged “violation of the appellate side rules by the administrative decision of the Acting Chief Justice” and “deficiencies” in logistics for virtual hearing of cases.
A committee of five senior judges, which met representatives of the three associations on Monday, agreed to extend the court’s working hours by half an hour and also allow hybrid hearings, in which lawyers have virtual presence in front of the court. There will be an option to appear. mode or physically.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya had on July 19 issued a case in which he passed caustic observations in an order on connectivity issues during virtual hearings of cases while referring it to a division bench by the acting chief justice. Reservation was expressed, that of “master of the roster” from his court.
Troubled by connectivity issue during hearing in virtual mode, Justice Bhattacharya On July 16, the Central Project Coordinator of the High Court was directed to show cause in writing as to why action should not be taken against the High Court Administration including the Registrar General and the Central Project Coordinator, especially for criminal contempt of court. Continuous interference in virtual hearings in court due to connectivity issues.
The reply to the show cause notice was filed on the same day as directed.
After the matter was referred to a division bench, Justice Bhattacharya, in an order on 19 July, said that at no time, he should ever be approached by the Registrar General or “Acting Chief Justice through the Secretary of his Lordship or the OSD (officer).” special duty) either seeking my consent or at least having the courtesy to inform me about such assignment,” he said, negating his judicial order in an administrative capacity.
“I have serious doubts about the transparency of the judicial system in our court in view of the above series of events,” Justice Bhattacharya said in the order.
He said the power of assignment, arising out of the concept of “master of roster”, “confines the administrative power of the Chief Justice to delegate specific types of matters to specific benches, which may be exercised by the RG or even That cannot be done at the will of the caretaker. Chief Justice.”
The High Court administration has filed a special leave petition.SLP) before Supreme court Challenging the order of Justice Bhattacharya
.