Govt move to set up Education Tribunal sparks Lawyer’s strike, Allahabad HC expresses concern

The Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to explain why a Specialised Education Tribunal proposed to be set up has been planned to be located at Lucknow alone, when the principal Bench of the High Court is located at Allahabad..The direction was passed in a PIL taken up by the Court titled, In Re: Dispute Relating to Place of Establishment of Adjudicatory Forum Like Specialized Tribunal etc. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Misra and Sudhir Agarwal observed,.“State has to explain, whether it has policy of providing justice to the place nearer the litigants or it has policy of providing justice by creating a Centrally located Adjudicatory Forum in the State only at one place; if so, what are the considerations on which selection of such place is made. State must also explain as to whether it has taken into consideration the dictum laid down by Supreme Court time and again regarding the place of Tribunal at the place where jurisdictional High Courts are situated and if it denies establishment of Tribunal at the place where jurisdictional High Court is situated, what are the considerations which prevail with it to take such decision.”.The issue came to light on Friday when the Court came to know of an ongoing strike being conducted by the High Court lawyers..The strike was called following the State government’s decision to constitute a Special Education Tribunal at Lucknow, which would take away the High Court’ s jurisdiction over cases relating to education disputes. The Court was informed that judicial work at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court had also been stalled following the lawyer’s strike..Whereas the legislation establishing the education tribunal is yet to receive Presidential assent, the Court expressed concern that its proposed location is less accessible to prospective litigants. The Court remarked,.“Since legislation has not been enforced till date, we find no reason to look into its correctness at this stage, but still for smooth functioning of Court and also to ensure that access to litigants as was available, be not seriously hampered, it is incumbent upon this Court to ensure, if for certain matters, Specialized Tribunals are constituted with an intention to provide alternative remedy and reduce burden of High Court, then Principal Bench of such Tribunal must be available at the Principal Seat of High Court and in any case, litigants should not be put in an adverse situation by denying access to justice by High Court, which was available earlier to the constitution of such Tribunals…..…Here we find it strange that in the matter of constitution of Tribunals, judicial remedy available to litigants earlier at a nearer place, is being deprived by creating Tribunal Centrally located only at one place in the State. It goes contrary to the very concept of providing access to justice to litigants at a nearer place..There may be reasons for such creation but then State has to explain those reasons to justify that depriving such access to litigants is in the interest of such litigants and there is no alternative but to create a Centrally located Adjudicatory Body at one place only.”.Bearing these concerns in mind, the Bench has issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government..The authorities have been ordered to file their response on what factors prompted the location of the education tribunal at only one place and whether the State has a policy of ensuring that justice is proximately accessible to litigants, except in justifiable exceptions..Further, notice was also issued notice to the Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow as well as High Court Bar Association, Allahabad and other recognized Bar Associations of High Court to gather their views on the issues raised..Abstention from judicial work by Lawyers goes against the interest of litigants.Additionally, the Court was also critical of judicial work at both Benches of the High Court being paralysed owing to the strike, as well as the State’s role in triggering the same..“This is a serious aspect where judicial work of High Court at Allahabad as well as Lucknow both is virtually paralyzed on account of abstention by Lawyers for the reason caused by State Government by taking a decision to constitute Education Tribunal at Lucknow only so as to relieve workload of High Court in respect of matters dealing with education disputes”, the Bench observed,.It proceeded to opine that such a serious situation needs to be examined at length by “a larger Bench of this Court so that above problem may be resolved and no such situation may arise in future and Courts may run properly.”.“We cannot shut our eyes from the fact that Courts at Allahabad and Lucknow both are reeling under acute heavy pendency of cases which has gone beyond 9.25 lacs at both places cumulatively. On the one hand, StakeHolders are endeavouring to take steps for early disposal of pending matters so that litigants may get justice at an early date but on the other hand, judicial work is paralyzed resulting in virtual non disposal of cases and frustrating the very attempt on the part of StakeHolders towards reduction in pendency of huge arrears.”.The Bench also made pertinent observations regarding the fallout faced by litigants when lawyers choose to go on strike..“It is more in the interest of litigants whose interest is of prime concern for the Court, since work of judiciary is only administration of justice, i.e. dispensation of justice to litigants and if this is hampered, the very core of the matter for which Institution subsists would get frustrated....... abstention from judicial work by Lawyers goes against the interest of litigants. It does not serve the purpose of Lawyers for which they are engaged by litigants. Lawyers are under an obligation to appear in the cases for which they have been engaged by litigants. They have assured their clients to appear and represent them in Court when vakalatnama is signed by litigant. .We do not find any clause in vakalatnama whereby litigant has authorized an Advocate not to appear in Court when it is listed. Such abstention from Court affects in various ways, the litigants. Bail Applications filed by those who are languishing in jail remain undecided and on account of Lawyers’ abstention from work, such persons without any fault on their part, continue to remain in jail and their applications remain undecided by Court when they are listed… .… Suffice it to mention that Lawyers are Officers of Court. When they ensure their clients that their dispute can be resolved by the process of law, it is more important for Lawyers themselves that their disputes are also resorted by process of law instead of resorting to take decision for abstention from work i.e. strike.”.Additionally, the Bench also noted that when lawyers go on strike thus, the judges are often made to become a part of their illegal strike. In this regard, the order states, .“Supreme Court repeatedly has held that strike by Lawyers is illegal. Lawyers being stakeholders of the Institution of dispensation of justice must show due respect to the law laid down by Supreme Court. They should not resort to an action which is in blatant defiance of law laid down by Supreme Court. .In fact, when they pass such a resolution of abstaining from work, and also communicate to Court with a request that Courts should also not pass adverse orders ex parte, virtually they invite Court and Judges to become a part to their illegal strike. This is neither permissible in law nor warranted nor should have been done at all.”.While the Court did not pass any direction against the ongoing strike. Rather, it seems to have made the following appeal to the striking lawyers to resume work..“Therefore, we hope and trust that so long this matter is considered and decided by this Court, Lawyers will resume work, which is more in the interest of their clients, litigants in general and Institution of justice in particular.“.The matter has been posted to be taken up next on August 30..[Read Order]