On July 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued a contempt notice to the Vishakhapatnam Bar Association for its role in obstructing the functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Vishakhapatnam. This development arose from a case where the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an Andhra Pradesh High Court order which dismissed their writ petition. The writ petition concerned the non-consideration of a Securitization Application filed in 2022, amidst claims of urgency.
The Supreme Court's order comes in response to an affidavit filed by the petitioner, revealing that the Vishakhapatnam Bar Association had repeatedly called for a boycott of court proceedings as a protest against the Land Titling Act, 2002. This boycott has led to significant delays, notably impacting the DRT’s ability to function effectively. According to a DRT order dated January 16, 2024, the petitioner's application was postponed to April 19, 2024, due to the ongoing strike. The Supreme Court has now directed that a notice be issued to the Registrar General of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, ensuring the service of the notice to relevant parties, including the DRT.
In addition to issuing the contempt notice, the Supreme Court has mandated that the DRT proceed with the hearing of the case on July 30, 2024. The Court has made it clear that failure to do so will compel it to take up the matter for hearing on its own merits. This directive underscores the Court’s stance against the disruption of judicial processes through strikes or boycotts.
The Supreme Court's intervention reflects a broader judicial frustration with the practice of lawyer strikes, which have been condemned by various High Courts in the past. In November 2023, the Supreme Court criticized similar boycotts by lawyers in Rajasthan, leading to notices being issued to the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association and the Bar Council of India. Earlier, in 2021, the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association had to tender an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for participating in a strike. The Allahabad High Court also took a firm stance against the Kanpur Bar Association and the District Court Bar Association, Prayagraj, for their prolonged strikes.
The petitioner’s grievance in this case centers around a Sale Notice issued by Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited, proposing the auction of their property, while their Securitization Application remains pending. The delay due to the strike has led to claims of irreparable harm and the potential futility of their application. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier directed the respondents to refrain from taking any coercive action, provided the petitioner deposited a portion of the auction amount within eight weeks.
This recent Supreme Court action reiterates the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that legal processes are not unduly hampered by external pressures, aiming to uphold the efficient and fair administration of justice.
Comments