Counsel's refusal to examine witness due to strike constitutes contempt: HC

Taking a serious note of delay in criminal trials especially on account of non-examination of witnesses, the Allahabad High Court on Friday ruled that any act of a counsel to prevent examination of a witness or refusal to examine a witness due to a strike call constitutes professional misconduct and contempt of court.

The observation was made by Justice Ajay Bhanot while hearing the third bail application moved by an accused in a criminal matter, Noor Alam on grounds that in spite of directions to conclude the trial the same is not being concluded.

The status report on the case sent by the trial court was to the effect that the lawyers repeatedly struck work. The striking lawyers prevented the examination of witnesses who had appeared before the trial court on the dates fixed.

Non-examination of witnesses on various dates derailed the court process and delayed the trial. Consequently the order of this Court was not complied with.

"In case examination of a witness is prevented by striking lawyers or striking lawyers refuse to examine witness, the learned trial court shall make its finding in that regard. The learned trial court shall also record names of lawyers who have declined to examine the witnesses or have prevented examination of witnesses pursuant to the strike call. The trial court shall send the report to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for initiation of disciplinary action and to the Registrar General of this Court for institution of contempt proceedings against erring lawyers," the judge said.

Observing that the right to a speedy trial has been exalted as a fundamental right in constitutional law, the court said, "Lawyers who strike work and impede the process of court by failing to examine or prevent the examination of a witness who is present in the court commit professional misconduct."

"The Bar Council is duly empowered under Section 35 of the Advocates Act to take appropriate action for misconduct," it said.

The court also granted bail to the applicant, saying he has been in jail since 2017 and merely because of deliberate delay in conclusion of trial one cannot be kept behind bar for a long period.

However, the court imposed conditions on the applicant that he will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial and further that he will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

The court also directed that the copy of this order be circulated to all courts of Uttar Pradesh, and shall also be served upon the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and to all Bar Associations in the district judgeships for compliance.