The violence that broke out in a courtroom of the Allahabad High Court after lawyers protested against a judge's remarks about them is a matter of concern. That this happened at a time when the judiciary itself is facing a crisis of credibility amid a growing trust deficit between the Bar and the Bench makes the incident even more worrying. The issue flared up after Justice Ajay Bhanot allegedly made a lawyer apologise to a police officer in court, an action that should not have been taken either. The Bar Association has alleged that the judge threatened to send the lawyer to jail and later ordered him to apologise to the officer. The lawyer had merely asked the SP not to occupy the bench meant for lawyers. Lawyers at the court had also accused the judge of behaving rudely with another senior advocate. The issue should not have escalated into ugly scenes, resulting in a contempt of court case being filed against the lawyers. The contempt order issued by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal described the incident as wholly unjustified and the behaviour of some advocates as absolutely contemptuous. “Such incidents amount to interference in the Court proceedings as poor litigants come to the high court for redressal of their grievance, and merely because some of the Advocates have problem with particular Court, they cannot be permitted to raise slogans, shout and disturb to other Courts’ proceedings,” the order said.
This view must be supported. There have been several instances of violence in courtrooms across the country, involving lawyers themselves and, as in this case, lawyers and a particular judge. Above all, this reflects the levels of frustration surrounding litigation, which has become tortuous and seemingly meaningless, dragging on for years. Lower courts have also witnessed violent shootouts, with accused persons brought for hearings being attacked within court premises.
Courts have increasingly become venues for vigilante justice, with accused persons being beaten up or even shot dead. This raises an important question: why should every accused person be physically present in court for every hearing? Transporting undertrials and accused persons from jails to courts and back is often unnecessary and dangerous. Yet, we cling to archaic practices because, as a country, we seem reluctant to move away from the status quo. Lawyers, too, must adhere to strict codes of conduct within court premises. The Bar Council, a statutory body, has also been far from effective, particularly when some habitual offenders are themselves members of the Council. Caught between a warring Bench and Bar, and the general disorder that pervades court premises, the hapless litigant is left to rue his fate, condemned to seemingly endless suffering.
