Allahabad HC to only entertain Bar Association resolutions for ‘no adverse orders’

Observing that it is unfortunate that the functioning of the court is put on hold without considering the importance of public time and public money, as well as the objective to ensure a speedy justice delivery system, the Allahabad high court has stated that in the future, it will only entertain resolutions passed by the Bar Association for “no adverse order” in the absence of counsel, not requests made by any office-bearer of the Bar.

While hearing a revision filed by Hazi Tahseen Khan, Justice Ajit Kumar remarked, “It is expected that in the future, whenever the Bar Association wants such letters to be circulated to the benches of the High Court seeking no adverse orders, they should always be supported by a resolution adopted by the Bar Association in general, or in exceptional circumstances, by its executive body.”

In the present case, on November 7, the petitioner requested a hearing as the respondent had been repeatedly absent. However, the bench secretary presented a letterhead from the office-bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA), signed by honorary secretary Vikrant Pandey, requesting a “no adverse order” for the 6th, 7th, and 8th of November, 2024.

The court then asked the Bar Association to demonstrate whether any such resolution had been passed by the Bar or its executive body for the general circulation of the “no adverse order” request.

In response, neither the president nor the secretary of the Bar Association appeared. However, the senior vice-president, Rajesh Khare, appeared before the court and, when asked whether such a resolution had been adopted by the Bar Association or its executive body, he could not provide any resolution from the general body or the executive body of the association.

Taking a serious note of this, Justice Ajit Kumar said, “The Bar Association should understand that the court’s functioning is governed by the rules of the court. Vacations/holidays are already scheduled, and except in compelling and unavoidable circumstances like natural calamities, pandemics, or untoward incidents, the working of the court should not be generally affected. If certain advocates cannot attend court due to personal religious rituals, the individual request for adjournment should be made. The court may entertain such requests for adjournment. The convenience of the Bar Association in pressing or unavoidable circumstances is always respected, but for that, the Bar Association or its executive body is expected to pass a resolution. A letter from any office-bearer at the instance of a few lawyers cannot be considered the general view of the Bar. As the counsel for the petitioner has insisted on a hearing, reasons must be recorded for not hearing the case and condoning the absence of the respondent’s counsel. The Bar is, therefore, expected to cooperate with the court’s routine functioning and ensure that the administration of justice is not adversely affected, or else the justice delivery system will crumble.”

However, in the interest of justice, the court adjourned the matter with the condition that no further adjournment would be granted to the respondent on the next date.

In its order dated November 7, the court directed that a copy of this order be sent to the Allahabad HCBA.