By IANS
New Delhi : Coming to court is not an easy task for 72-year-old Somnath Wadhawan but a legal battle he has been entangled in for the past 10 years forces him to do so. Tuesday’s strike by lawyers in Delhi has left many litigants like him disappointed.
“Advocates should not go on strike when the Supreme Court of India has declared this method of protest illegal. There are other modes of protesting,” Wadhawan told IANS. The hearing of his case was deferred due to the strike.
Lawyers of the Delhi High Court and lower courts went on strike Tuesday to protest Friday’s bomb blasts targeting courts in three Uttar Pradesh cities.
Delhi Bar Council chairman K.K. Manan condemned the blasts that claimed 13 lives and asked lawyers to refrain from work as a mark of respect for those killed in the serial bombings.
There are almost 30 million pending cases across various levels of the judiciary, primarily in the lower courts. The Justice Malimath Committee had pointed out that the backlog of criminal cases was so huge that it would take four years to clear it if not a single new case was added on.
“Lawyers enjoy a special status in society and what they do affects not only individuals but also the administration of justice, which is the backbone of a civilised society, so holding a strike is not a favourable option,” said Rajesh Sharma, who had come to the high court from Ghaziabad to settle a case registered against him in New Delhi.
“If lawyers have any grievance, they could wear black badges and hold protest marches in a peaceful manner,” said a judicial officer.
A few other sufferers said if lawyers insisted on striking work, they should be dealt with sternly and if need be their licences should be suspended or cancelled as a punitive measure.
“In case the advocates do not appear on the date of the hearing, the judicial officers are competent to impose a fine of Rs.500 for one hearing and on the second hearing this fine may be raised to double for defaulting advocates. Non-payment of the fine should be considered contempt of court,” said Sandhya Rawat, another litigant who is contesting a dowry harassment case.
Even the legal fraternity seemed to be divided on the issue of holding strikes. “In our country, where the crime rate is high, we continue to need more lawyers. The country cannot afford to have lawyers going on strikes. It is not the only way of registering protest,” a lawyer told IANS, but on condition of anonymity.