In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court underscored the vital role of advocates, likening them to the “Army of the Bench,” emphasizing that they alone can publicly voice the concerns and challenges faced by judges. This pronouncement was made in the case of Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Advocate v State of UP and 8 Others by a Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan.
The Court observed, “Bar is the ‘Army’ of the Bench. Judges communicate through their judgments, but there are instances where they cannot openly express their distress. In such situations, the Bar is the entity that can provide the necessary support.” This declaration came during deliberations on a series of petitions concerning the operations of bar associations in Uttar Pradesh and the deficiencies in their governing bye-laws.
Role and Responsibility of the Bar
The bench highlighted the importance of the bye-laws in shaping the character of the Bar, noting, “The dignity of the Bar determines its status, and the strength of this ‘Army’ is crucial in protecting judges from various hindrances in the justice delivery system.” The Court emphasized that advocates must refrain from using improper means to influence judges and prevent their clients from engaging in sharp or unfair practices. They are expected to maintain decorum in their correspondence and avoid inflammatory language in court proceedings.
According to the Court, “Indisciplined or non-practicing lawyers cannot uphold these standards.” The judgment, delivered on May 20, noted the influx of writ petitions from different bar associations seeking resolutions to election-related issues.
Addressing Disputes Within Bar Associations
The Court also addressed issues relating to the disruption of the Elders Committee, which is responsible for election oversight post the tenure of office bearers. To minimize disputes, the Court ruled that any seniority disputes among Elders Committee members are to be resolved exclusively by the State Bar Council. The Council, however, cannot dictate the postponement of elections; only the chairman or the three senior-most committee members can decide on election deferments.
The Court further clarified, “As for the determination of the Elders Committee of an Advocates Association of the High Court, the five most senior advocates actively practicing in the High Court should be considered. The seniority list maintained by the Allahabad High Court must be strictly followed.”
Financial and Structural Guidelines for the Elders Committee
The ruling also specified that the Elders Committee is not authorized to make financial decisions or decisions concerning the bar association’s properties. It can only exercise financial powers necessary for daily functions or election processes. The Court stipulated that the Elders Committee should be a permanent body comprising five senior-most advocates practicing before the High Court.
In district courts, the seniority of the Elders Committee members is determined by their enrollment date, with only those having at least ten years of regular practice eligible for consideration. The Court directed, “Once elections are held, the charge must be transferred to the newly elected Committee, after which the senior-most Member of the Elders Committee, the Chairman, will retire, and the next senior-most Member will be inducted.”
