M A I N   N E W S

Strike at Pb & Haryana HC
Lawyers’ stir brings Bar rift to the fore
Saurabh Malik/TNS

This is perhaps the first time in recallable past that the Bar members have come out in the open to attack each other so blatantly. It seems that a section of the Bar is up in arms against senior advocate Anupam Gupta and his followers on the issue of taking credit and continuing with the strike, and that too when strike by the lawyers has been held illegal up to the level of the apex court.

The genesis

The entire controversy has its genesis in the incident that took place at the Punjab and Haryana High Court entrance on the morning of February 26. A group of advocates allegedly thrashed Chandigarh police head constable Ramesh Chand, deputed at gate number one.

The Chandigarh police, soon after the incident, placed under suspension the services of the head constable, who allegedly sustained multiple injuries. On the same day, the police ordered an inquiry into the incident by Indian Reserve Battalion Commandant Arun Kampani.

The inquiry report said Punjab’s former senior additional advocate-general Rupinder Singh Khosla abused the head constable and tried to force his way through the security gates without the newly-introduced identification card, provoking the policeman to slap the lawyer.

It was after Kampani’s report that the police registered an FIR against Khosla and other advocates for rioting, obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty, and causing damage to public property. Advocates were targeted again with water canons, and another case was slapped on them, as they tried to lift the barricades and move towards the Raj Bhawan on March 6 for submitting a memorandum.

The differences in the Bar surfaced soon after the members were informed about the fact that the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter on March 7 morning; and had marked a fresh probe, while staying further proceedings in the first FIR against the lawyers.

The differences

After the judicial intervention in the matter, the Bar Association president, with the concurrence of the executive, decided to resume work. But a group of advocates led by Anupam Gupta opposed the move and accused the executive committee of taking unilateral decision. The situation took a dramatic turn when veteran advocates, Puran Singh Hundal and Surender Lamba, trained their guns at Gupta and accused him of making attempts to take over the credit.

Lawyers alleged Gupta was interacting with the Deputy Commissioner, police and other officials, without taking other advocates in confidence. They were of the opinion that Gupta should have diverted the administration, or the police authorities, to the Bar president or the executive instead of interacting with them at his own level.

What lawyers say

Hundal says such an action amounts to running down not just other Bar members, but also the institution. He believes that Gupta’s actions are motivated more by self-promotion forces, than concern for the members or the institution.

Accusing Gupta of putting his own interests before concerns for the judiciary, Lamba says it’s always been “I, me, and myself” when it comes to Gupta. “Anupam has been boasting that the officers of the UT Administration come to his place. If he is so popular among them, he should have used his good offices for preventing the situation from taking an ugly turn since the very beginning,” says Lamba. “He and some of his supporters have been hijacking the meetings otherwise also”.

A section of lawyers also insist that strike should not have been even the last resort. The move to proceed towards the Raj Bhawan for submitting a memorandum too is being questioned. “The power to quash an FIR does not lie with the Governor. Then why this representation?” advocates are questioning.

Gupta’s supporters, on the other hand, insist that the attempts are aimed at preserving the dignity of not just individual lawyers, but also the institution. “Gupta’s fight is not for the furtherance of his personal interest, but for the lawyer fraternity,” they insist.

Slapping case heading for an amicable end
Tribune News Service

The High Court on Thursday had marked an inquiry into the incident after taking cognizance of the matter. The advocates too resolved to resume work from Monday after the Bench on judicial side directed Dhawan to carry out a fact finding inquiry into the brawl. The Bench observed after going through the FIR, it felt that an independent inquiry was needed.