Lawyers are up in arms against Chief Justice of India R M Lodha’s revolutionary suggestion to keep courts open 365 days a year on the lines of emergency services like hospitals.
The CJI had requested Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Biri Singh Sinsinwar a month ago to get feedback from stakeholders on his suggestion. The BCI convened a meeting of chairmen of all state bar councils on Wednesday, which saw a virtual rebellion against the CJI’s suggestion.
Echoing the majority view, the BCI chairman said: “It is not possible for advocates to attend the court for all 365 days, it is neither practical nor feasible without rest for an advocate to work throughout the year.“
Before outright rejection of the CJI's proposal, the heads of state councils took potshots at CJIs `playing to the gallery” towards the end of their tenures. Justice Lodha, in fact, has a very short tenure of five months.
As the meeting was getting severely critical of the CJI, Chhattisgarh advocate general Jugal Kishore Gilda suggested setting up of a committee of eminent advocates to examine the proposal and interact with the head of the judiciary on the issue.
The CJI had also written to high courts and suggested curtailing vacations as a way to ensure speedy justice for litigants. On Thursday, Sinsinwar told reporters: “Most of the members representing various state bar councils, presidents of high court bar associations and members present at the meeting did not agree with the suggestions of the CJI in absence of modality to implement the idea.” While the BCI rejected the CJI’s proposal for speedy justice, it decided to make a demand to the government to exempt advocates from paying toll as “advocates are also rendering social service to the community”.
Lodha had thought his proposal would not only speed up the justice delivery mechanism but ensure work for thousands of junior advocates. He had also cast his vote against adjournments sought on the ground that the client’s advocate was engaged in some other court.
The CJI had requested Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Biri Singh Sinsinwar a month ago to get feedback from stakeholders on his suggestion. The BCI convened a meeting of chairmen of all state bar councils on Wednesday, which saw a virtual rebellion against the CJI’s suggestion.
Echoing the majority view, the BCI chairman said: “It is not possible for advocates to attend the court for all 365 days, it is neither practical nor feasible without rest for an advocate to work throughout the year.“
Before outright rejection of the CJI's proposal, the heads of state councils took potshots at CJIs `playing to the gallery” towards the end of their tenures. Justice Lodha, in fact, has a very short tenure of five months.
As the meeting was getting severely critical of the CJI, Chhattisgarh advocate general Jugal Kishore Gilda suggested setting up of a committee of eminent advocates to examine the proposal and interact with the head of the judiciary on the issue.
The CJI had also written to high courts and suggested curtailing vacations as a way to ensure speedy justice for litigants. On Thursday, Sinsinwar told reporters: “Most of the members representing various state bar councils, presidents of high court bar associations and members present at the meeting did not agree with the suggestions of the CJI in absence of modality to implement the idea.” While the BCI rejected the CJI’s proposal for speedy justice, it decided to make a demand to the government to exempt advocates from paying toll as “advocates are also rendering social service to the community”.
Lodha had thought his proposal would not only speed up the justice delivery mechanism but ensure work for thousands of junior advocates. He had also cast his vote against adjournments sought on the ground that the client’s advocate was engaged in some other court.
No comments:
Post a Comment