New Delhi, Nov 19 (PTI) The Supreme Court has rejected the apology tendered by the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association over a show-cause notice as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against its office bearers for shouting slogans and shutting down the door of the courtroom.A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna said the words used in the affidavits cannot be said to be tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology."We reject and return the affidavits with a liberty to the office bearers of the Association to file a better affidavit and also to come out with a Resolution of the Bar Association that in future such acts shall not be repeated.""The Bar Association shall not go on strike and/or pressurise and Chief Justice and/or any other Judge(s) in any manner whatsoever and even pressurise the Chief Justice of the High Court to change the Roster of a particular Judge or the Bench," the bench said in its November 17 order.Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing on behalf of the office-bearers of the Bar Association, requested the top court to adjourn the matter to enable the office bearers of the Bar Association to file a better affidavit and to pass a Resolution and present before this Court.The matter is listed for the next hearing on November 25, 2021.The apex court had earlier rapped the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association for not filing its response on a show-cause notice.It had said the contents of the report filed by the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench are shocking.The Registrar General in its report had told the bench that the office bearers of Bar Association and other lawyers assembled outside the court of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma and asked fellow Advocates to come out of the Court Room."On receiving the information that Advocates are raising slogans outside the courtroom of Justice Sharma, the Registrar (Admn.) immediately went to the courtroom and found that the Advocates have shut down the door of the courtroom and were not allowing anybody to enter the courtroom.""The Registrar (Admn.) anyhow entered the court and found Justice Satish Kumar Sharma sitting in the courtroom but no advocate was there. All Courts except the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Sharma functioned normally, " the report had said.The top court was hearing a case in which the advocates in the Rajasthan High Court went on strike on September 27, 2021.The apex court had earlier said it is "unprofessional" and "unbecoming" for a lawyer to refuse to attend the court due to a strike or boycott by the Bar Associations as they cannot disrupt court proceedings and put the interest of their clients in jeopardy.The top court had observed that an advocate is an officer of the court and enjoys a special status in society.It had taken note of the submission of Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra that BCI has issued the notice to the Bar Association of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.The senior advocate had stated that there was a call to boycott only one court.The apex court had said even that also cannot be tolerated."To boycott only one court will hamper the independence of the judiciary and there may be a pressure on the particular judge whose court is boycotted and it may lead to demoralisation of the judiciary," the court had said.The bench had issued notice to the President, Secretary, and the Office Bearers of the Bar Association of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur to show cause why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them.The apex court had directed the Registry to serve notices through the Registrar General of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.Referring to its earlier decisions, the top court had said that to go on strike by the Bar Association and the lawyers is absolutely contemptuous and just contrary to the earlier decisions of this Court.In its earlier order, the apex court had specifically observed and held that the lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or to give a call for the strike.It had also held that nor can they, while holding Vakalat on behalf of clients, abstain from appearing in courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott.
