Justice Chandrachud in his speech expects ‘Senior Advocates’ to protest against judges and stop them from disrespecting Junior Lawyers.
In his speech at ‘Supreme Court Bar Association’ felicitation, He gave example of Sr. Counsel Shyam Nath Kakkar as to how he objected Justice Desai from insulting Junior Advocates.
See the video
1. The members of the Bar must work as per spirit in line with the principles and guidelines given in the following paras: –
(i) ‘Injustice’ anywhere is threat to ‘Justice’ everywhere. – Martin Luther King
(ii) Evil unchecked means evil tolerated and evil tolerated is evil propagated.
(iii) If you are neutral in situation of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. – Archbishop Desmond Tutu
(iv) This world suffered a lot because of silence of good people than the violence of bad people.
(v) When injustice becomes the law, resistance becomes the duty. -Thomas Jefferson
(vi) Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on. – Thurgood Marshall
(vii) Don’t see ‘who is right’ see ‘what is Right’ – Adv. Nilesh Ojha
2. Regarding duty, rights, dignity and protections available to the advocates, the following important judgements are path guiding.
2.1. In R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madras (2019) 16 SCC 407, court observed that, it is the duty of the lawyer to protect honest Judges. If any attempt is made to deter the advocates from performing their duties to raise voice against corrupt Judges and making the Bar too sycophant and fearful would be non-conducive to the fair administration of justice.
In addition to above observation, Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled as under;
“It is duty of the lawyer to lodge appropriate complaint to the concerned authorities as observed by this Court in Vinay Chandra Mishra (supra), which right cannot be totally curtailed.
……..Making the Bar too sycophant and fearful which would not be conducive for fair administration of justice. Fair criticism of judgment and its analysis is permissible. Lawyers' fearlessness in court, independence, uprightness, honesty, equality are the virtues which cannot be sacrificed.
It is the duty of the Bar to protect honest judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same time to ensure that corrupt judges are not spared.”
2.2. In High Court of Karnataka Vs. Jai Chaitanya dasa & Others 2015 (3) AKR 627, it is ruled as under;
“An over subservient Bar would be one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to the administration of justice.
196. The first duty which the counsel owes to the Court is to maintain its honour and dignity. Respect and allegiance which the counsel owes is not to the person of the Judge but to his office. The duty of courtesy to the Court does not imply that he should not maintain his self-respect and independence as his client’s advocate. Respect for the Court does not mean that the counsel should be servile. It is his duty, while respecting the dignity of Court, to stand firm in advocacy of the cause of his client and in maintaining the independence of the Bar. It is obviously in the interests of justice that an advocate should be secured in the enjoyment of considerable independence in performing his duties. An over subservient Bar would be one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to the administration of justice.”
2.3. In O.P. Sharma Vs. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86 it is ruled that;
“Section – I of Chapter-II, part VI title “standards of professional conduct and etiquette” of the Bar Council India rules specifies the duties of an advocate that ‘he shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against Judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.”