Finds HCBA decision ‘ex-facie unlawful’, phrases dismemberment “extraordinarily Unfair, Unjust, Harsh, Uncalled for’
CHANDIGARH: The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana on Monday stayed the dismemberment of Advocate General Atul Nanda by the High Court Bar Association (HCBA), terming it “extraordinarily unfair, unjust, harsh and uncalled for.” It additionally stayed the dis-memberment of another members of the Bar, discovering it “in derogation of the HCBA guidelines.”
An emergent assembly of the Bar Council mentioned the Association’s choice through Resolution ‘E’ qua dis-membering of Nanda at size, and located the motion to have been taken “in an arbitrary method”. The assembly was known as after the Punjab & Haryana Bar Association dismembered all legal professionals who appeared in court docket in the present day regardless of a strike name. The advocation additionally handed a decision dismembering AG Atul Nanda on grounds that he had “constantly labored in opposition to bodily opening of the court docket”.
The Association, in Clause “E” of its Resolution, held that: “Sh. Atul Nanda Advocate General, Punjab has constantly labored in opposition to the bodily opening of the Court and has acted in opposition to the pursuits of the Bar and is dis-membered from the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association.”
The Council, nevertheless, held that “The Resolution “E” is ex-facie unlawful and handed in violation of the prescribed process within the related Rules of the HCBA and as such the House unanimously resolves to remain the Resolution “E” of HCBA that’s half of Resolution No. 1988/2021 HCBA dated 01.02.2021 with quick impact.” The Council reiterated unanimously that Nanda’s conduct “has all the time been considerable and exemplary particularly every time the curiosity of Advocates is concerned.”
Nanda himself expressed shock on the unilateral and arbitrary decision of the Association, saying “the choice to begin bodily listening to rests with the executive committee of the High court docket and never with me”. He mentioned the courts have been closed for bodily listening to protecting within the thoughts the Covid menace, “which is way from over and the world continues to be battling the crises.” He additional mentioned he had given consent for bodily look of the counsels for the state of Punjab. Incidentally, the Supreme Court of India has additionally but not opened for bodily listening to.
The Bar Council, after elaborate dialogue throughout its emergent assembly, “resolved that on one hand the Council totally helps the decision relating to opening of bodily hearings and strongly stands with the High Court Bar Association on this” however “All the members have been of the view that the choice taken by HCBA, is extraordinarily unfair, unjust, harsh and uncalled for.”
The Bar Council members have been of the view that Nanda had all the time stood for the trigger of Advocates, and the mentioned decision of the HCBA was in opposition to the info as he had publicly, many a instances, supported the resumption of bodily working of the Courts. They additional famous that as lately as third January 2021, Nanda addressed the House consisting of all of the Presidents and workplace bearers of all Bar Associations of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh at Law Bhawan, the place he had supported the Resolution of the House for resumption of bodily listening to of instances.
In truth, the Council identified, “the Advocate General Punjab has already written a Letter on the thirtieth of January 2021 giving his consent for look of regulation officers of the State of Punjab throughout bodily listening to of instances within the High Court.” Its Resolution additional learn: “It has additionally been mentioned that yesterday on thirty first January, a gathering of the Administrative Committee comprising of the Hon’ble Judges was convened on the Conference Hall of High Court at 04:00 PM to debate the resumption of bodily listening to and resolve the pending points. The workplace bearers of the HCBA have been additionally invited for dialogue within the above assembly. The workplace bearers as a substitute of attending the assembly and maintain discussions with Hon’ble Judges, had chosen to boycott the assembly for the explanation finest identified to them. The House was intentionally not apprised of the above factual place which is evident concealment.”
The Council additionally stayed the dis-memberment of another Members, noting that it was “handed in full derogation of the HCBA Rules i.e Rule 10 (d) and Rule 11, as neither the correct discover for the assembly was given nor the minimal quorum, as required, for such assembly was full.”
“The disciplinary motion in opposition to any Member of the Bar can’t be taken with out following the drill of related Rules,” the Council decision famous, including that “a particular agenda with due discover is required to be circulated if the conduct of a Member of HCBA is to be mentioned within the House.