# The responses should be in English, but if any response is in a language other than

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 20/IIIb-36/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1995-05-09
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 20/IIIb-36/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-responses-should-be-in-english-but-if-any-response-is-in-a-language-other-163994
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

533
3.
The responses should be in English, but if any response is in a language other than
English, it shall be accompanied by a translation thereof in English.
(iv)
Intimation to the Chairman Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh, whenever
Advocates resort to boycott or strike.
C.L. No. 20/IIIb-36/Admn. 'G' dated May 9, 1995
I am directed to say that whenever the Advocates resort to boycott or strike the
same shall also be intimated to the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh, Bar Council immediately
under intimation to the High Court.
No. 32 /2006/Admin 'G': Dated: 7.8. 2006.
The Bar Council of India, New Delhi has apprised to the Court that at its meeting
held on 8th and 9th April, 2006 considered the mode of addressing Judges of the Supreme
Court, High Court and Subordinate Courts and passed Resolution No. 58/2006.
In this, regard, I am directed to send herewith a copy of letter no. STBC (Cir .)
No. 15/2006, dated 13.06.2006 as well as letter No. STBC (Cir.) No. 11/2006, dated
20.04.2006 containing resolution no. 58/2006 referred to above for your information and
to request you to kindly bring the contents of the letter as also Resolution No.5812006 to
the notice of all the Judicial Officers working in the Judgeship under your supervision and
control for their information.
C.L. No. 38/2006/Admn. ―G‖, dated 19.9.2006
In modification of the Court's earlier Circular Letter Mo. 20/2006, dated
29.05.2006, I am directed to say that in furtherance while passing orders dated
25.07.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12458 of 2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 12458 of 2006. Purushlottam Giri v. Deputy Director Consolidation and others, the
Hon'ble Court is of the view that to streamline the details about lawyers practicing in a
district and in case of any suspicion about the veracity of details about a lawyer, the
details will be docketed in a common register which is to be maintained at one place in a
district which will serve as a nodal/model register to serve the requirements in a district.
The Hon'ble Court has been pleased to pass the following directions in this respect:
1.
The register about details of lawyers practicing in district courts shall be
maintained at the end of the district Judge and the same shall be prepared
under the supervision and control of the District Judge or any Additional
District Judge so authorized by the District Judge.
2.
Each and every practicing Advocate shall furnish requisite details about
himself by means of an application duly signed by him and such details
would include residential address, police station, postal address and
telephone number etc. besides the authenticated copy of enrolment and the
undertaking that he has not made any application anywhere else for enlisting
his name in the register aforesaid except the district in which he has been
practicing.
3.
The District Judge shall maintain complete record on the basis of such
record submitted by the Advocates as postulated in the amendment made in
the relevant Rules.
534
4.
A similar register shall be prepared and maintained in the High Court
containing all requisite details as stated supra.
5.
That the register so prepared shall be transmitted to the Bar Council as also
to High Court for being verified and authenticated.
6.
The other authorities including all the tribunals situated in a district such as
Trade Tax Tribunal, Income Tax Tribunals etc. may seek authenticated
details about the lawyers from the register so maintained at the end of the
District Judge.
While enclosing herewith a copy of order dated 25.07.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 12458 of 2006 - Purushottam Giri v. Deputy Director Consolidation and
others, I am directed to request that the contents of and directions in the order aforesaid,
be unerringly gone through all the way for ensuring strict compliance by all concerned
under your administrative control.
C. L. No. 6/2006/Admin 'G': Dated: 20th February, 2007.
In continuation of the Court's earlier Circular Letter No. 38/2006/Admin.'G',
dated 19.09.2006 on the above-cited subject I am directed to say that upon consideration
of the affidavit filed oh behalf of Bar Counsel, U.P., Allahabad in regard to registration of
advocates on the rolls of the District Courts and the Hon'ble High Court In it's order dated
18.12.2006 in the aforesaid Writ Petition is of the view that there is no difficulty in
prescribing some date for registration of Advocates practicing in different district courts
including High Court in terms of guidelines contained In the order of the Court dated
.25.07.2006.
The Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe in the order mentioned herein
above as under: -
"Accordingly 31.03.2007 is fixed as the last date for furnishing requisite
detail required for registration at the end of the District Judge in the case of
the Advocates practising In the districts and at the end of the Registrar
General in the case of the advocates practising in the High Court and
Registrar, in the case of the advocates practising at Lucknow Bench of the
Court attended with the proviso that no registration of any advocate shall be
permissible after expiry of the aforesaid date except those advocates who are
enrolled thereafter.‖

I am, therefore, while enclosing herewith a copy of order dated 18.12.2006 passed
in the above Writ Petition, to request you to kindly ensure strict compliance of the
directions as contained therein as well as Court's Circular Letter in the Judgeship under
your supervisory control.
C.L. No. 15/Admin. (G) 12007 Allahabad Dated: 13.04.2007
In continuation of circular letter no.125/Admin./G/ dated 9th December 1994, I am
directed to inform you that information regarding any serious untoward incident should
be immediately brought into the notice of the Court either on phone or through FAX at
once without any lapse otherwise it would be seriously dealt with.
535
You are, therefore, requested to ensure the compliance of this circular letter
immediately without any failure.
C. No. 17/2007 Dated: 10.5.2007
The state Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has apprised the Hon'ble Court
that on a review of the sale of Welfare Stamp of Rs. 10/- it has come to the notice that the
provisions as contained under U.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1974 as also U.P.
Advocate Social Security Fund Scheme rules, 1989 are not being complied with strictly
causing loss of expected revenue while mandatory provision has been given under U.P.
Advocate Welfare Act 1979 for affixation of the stamp of Rs. 10/- even in hearing of the
old cases and that no head is given in this respect

Therefore, while referring Court's circular letter No. 1/VI f-249, date January 8,
1999 G.L. No. 10239/VIII f-249, dated August 10, 2001 C.L. No. 43/VIIf-249, dated
Dec. 12, 2003 and C.L. No. 4/2006/VIIf-249 , dated January 22, 2005, I am directed to
request you to kindly ensure strict compliance of the provisions as contained in the
aforesaid act and Rules as also direction issued through the aforesaid Court's circular
and general letters. a copy of the Uttar Pradesh Government letter No. 224/Seven -Nyay7-03-155 /90TG, date March 12, 2007 is enclosed herewith for your information and
necessary action.

I am also to request you to kindly bring the contents of the State Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow letter dated March 12, 2007 referred to above as also the
contents of the circular letter to the notice of all the judicial Officers as well as to all
concerned in you Sessions Division for their information and strict compliance.
(v)
Strike by Lawyers
C.L. No. 35/IIIb-36/Admin ̳G' Dated: 04.10.2004

The strikes by lawyers in the District Courts in Uttar Pradesh have assumed
menacing proportions. The fact that the large number of the working days in the
subordinate Courts are lost in the State due to strike by lawyers has been observed with
great concern.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the lawyer's strikes are illegal and
that effective steps should be taken to stop the growing tendency. In Pandurang
Duttatravs Khandekar vs Bar Council of Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC 556; Tahil Ram
Issardas Sadaraugam vs. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangam 1993 (3) SCC 256; Common
Clause Act Registered Society vs. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 19; Sanjeev Dutta vs.
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (1995) 3 SCC 619; Indian Council of Legal Aid
& Advice vs. Bar Council of India 1995 (1) SCC 732; K John Koshi v. Dr. Tarakeshwar
Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624; Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. 1999
(1) SCC 37 and Ex. Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45, it was
held by the Supreme Court that the advocates have no right to go on strike. The courts are
under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it
is the duty of all courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of
lawyers. In other words, courts must not be privy to strikes of calls for boycotts. It was
held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalatnama of a client abstains from attending court due
to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs, which shall be in addition to
536
damages, which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him. Inspite of
repeated pronouncements by Supreme Court, the strikes have continued unabated. The
practical experience at the ground level shows that often these strikes take place in
collusion with Judicial Officers.

In M/s Suresh Chandra Varshney & Co. vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.
15342 of 2000 decided on 30.3.2000) this Court observed that ―it has come to our notice
that in about half of the District Courts in the State of U.P. the lawyer are on strike for
about a month and they are not permitting any judicial authority to work. This is deeply
regrettable and highly objectionable. The judiciary exists for serving the people and not
for the lawyer and judges. In our view the attitude of the lawyers of the District courts
and Commissionaires of U.P. who are on strike for the last about one month is most
irresponsible. This act of the lawyers will no longer be tolerated by this Court, and
nobody will be allowed to hold the judiciary to ransom. A division bench of this Court in
Manoj Kumar vs. Civil Judge. 1997 (3) UPLBEC 1767 has held that if lawyers go on
strike even then courts must sit and pass judicial orders even in absence of the lawyers,
and if the functioning of the court is disturbed by anybody police help must be taken by
the District Judge or other Presiding Officer. The people of the State are fed up Uttar
Pradesh with lawyers' strikes and they are suffering greatly. The lawyers must
understand that litigants, witnesses etc. come to court from far off places often at heavy
expense but they find that the courts are closed just because the lawyers are on strike.
This is most unfair to the litigants or their witnesses. We, therefore, direct the Judges of
all District Courts, Commissioners, and other presiding officers of the courts or
authorities where judicial or quasi-judicial work is being done that from tomorrow they
must start sitting in court and start hearing the cases and pass orders even in the absence
of the lawyers who are on strike. If anybody disturbs the working of the court the District
judge, Collector, Commissioner or the presiding officer of the court concerned or
authority shall call the police and prevent them from doing so. The lawyers must know
that enough is enough.'

In Siddhartha Kumar vs. Upper Civil Judge, Ghazipur, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 587,
the Division Bench observed that ―Nothing more is required to be added on this score
except that those Presiding Officers (though their number is very little who have
developed vested interest in the strikes be delt with sternly. They became party to
engineer a strike on particular days. One of us (Justice O.P. Garg), on the basis of longstanding experience of the working of the District Courts, may venture to say that some
Presiding Officers become restive if for a long spell of time there is no strike. Feelers are
sent to the members of the Bar to go on strike so that monotony and drudgery be broken
to have a respite. The period of strike in not meant for rejoining jubilation or merrymaking. Hereafter, the Presiding Officers shall not be granted any remission in their outturn of work due to the strike by the lawyers. The period of strike days shall also be
computed towards working days and the out-turn of work shall be calculated with
reference to the actual working days including the strike period.‖

The judiciary is accountable to the public. The dispensation of justice must not
stop for any reason. The strikes by lawyers have lowered the image of the judiciary in the
eyes of the public. The Supreme Court has held that right to speedy justice is included in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In A.R. Antulay vs. R.S Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225
537
and Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507, it was held that the litigant
has a right to speedy justice. The lawyers' strike, however, are denying these rights to the
citizen in the State.

In the State of U.P., the lawyers resort to strike for the most flimsy reasons. Often
these strikes are case specific actions. Where a group of lawyers either do not want the
case to be taken up or desire a particular matter to be adjourned. In most of the Districts,
the strike is virtually institutionalized. The District Judges accept the resolutions of the
Bar Associations, as a matter of course, and circulate them amongst the Judicial Officers.
This virtually amounts to collaborating with the lawyers in closing the Courts and
avoiding judicial works. This Court has issued circulars on various occasions, directing
that the Court should not accept the resolutions of strikes by lawyers and must discharge
their judicial work. It is, however, seen that inspite of following directives of the Court,
the Judicial Officers rise on the small pretext and on a simple request made by the
lawyers that they are on strike and neglect judicial work.

In Monoj Kumar vs. Civil Judge, Deoria ( Writ Petition No. 33778 of 1997
decided on 10.10.1997) the Division Bench observed that ―Before parting with this case,
we would like to mention that it is deeply regrettable and highly objectionable that there
are strikes in District Courts in U.P. on flimsy and frivolous pretexts, and some District
Courts function only for about 60 or 70 days in a year. This is a shocking state of affairs,
and will no longer be tolerated by this Court. The judiciary and bar are both accountable
to the public and they must behave in a responsible manner so that cases are decided
quickly and thus the faith of the public in the judiciary is maintained. Surely, the public
has right to expect this from us. We therefore, issue a general mandamus to all the
judicial officers in all District Courts in U.P. that if the lawyers go on strike the judicial
officers must, despite the strike of lawyers, sit in court and pass orders in cases before
them even in the absence of the counsels. If the lawyers disturb the functioning of the
Court, the District Judge shall contact the police, the police will give all protection to the
judges, and the cases will not be adjourned merely because of the lawyers' strike. People
in the State are fed up with lawyers' strikes and this state of affairs must now end. The
lawyers must realize that litigants, witnesses, etc, often come from distant places at heavy
expense and it is most improper that they have to go away because of strikes by lawyers.
The judiciary exists for the people and not for lawyers of judges‖

No one has right to obstruct the administration of justice. Extraordinary situation
demands extraordinary measures to be taken. Where the fundamental rights of the
citizens are being grossly violated, the High Court as a guardian of Subordinate Courts
and as a protector of rights of the citizens would not sit quite and allow the situation to
deteriorate. It is necessary that very strong measures should be taken to stop the growing
tendency of the strikes. The Court now feels that the time has come to take immediate
effective and strong steps, to remedy the situation and, therefore, the Court has resolved
that in order to curve the tendencies of strike by lawyers following steps/measures be
taken:-
1.
The Subordinate Courts shall not take cognizance of any resolution passed
by the Bar Associations to strike, and to stop judicial work. The District
Judge concerned shall not entertain or circulated any such resolutions
amongst the Judicial Officers in his judgeship.
538
2.
The Judicial Officers must strictly adhere to Court hours. They shall
perform the entire judicial work on the dais, and shall not accept any
request to rise, or to stop judicial work on the request of lawyers or
litigants. In case lawyers do not attend to work the judicial officers shall
proceed to work in the following manner:-
A.
Where the parties are willing they shall be heard personally and
necessary orders shall be passed in requiring no further evidence.
B.
In matters fixed for evidence parties shall be allowed to file
documents and do examinations/cross examination of witnesses, if
so desire.
C.
In revisions, review appeals (Civil and Criminal both), bails and
urgent applications, the orders should be passed on merits of the
case.
D.
In criminal trials of the courts of Session or Magistrate the
witnesses in attendance should be examined by the public
prosecutor/ prosecuting officer as the case be, giving an option to
the accused to either cross examine the witnesses himself or bear
the expenses for recalling of the witnesses, for cross examination
on the date(s) next to be fixed.
3.
The District judges shall submit weekly reports to the Court, with regard to
any incident, which may take place in the judgeship with compliance report
of these directives.
4.
In case any lawyer or group of lawyers or litigants, creates indiscipline in
the Court or try to obstruct court proceedings. The Judicial Officer
concerned should immediately inform the District Judge, who shall
immediately arrange for the police force and restore the functioning of the
court. In case, any damage is caused to the records or the court property.
The District Judge shall immediately get the First Information Report of the
incident lodged.
5.
The District Judges shall arrange for adequate police force, to be kept in
reserve in the judgeship, to be deployed for protection of the judicial
officers and the court property.
6.
The District Judge should inform the names of the persons involved in
disrupting the court proceeding to the High Court forthwith.
7.
The Judicial Officers shall not perform any judicial work in their chambers.

I am to add that the entire contents of the circular letter be brought to notice of all
the Judicial Officers as also the Bar Associations in your Judgeship for strict compliance
and vigil be kept by you for strict compliance of the directions in the circular letter.
Court's concern over the strike of lawyers in the Subordinate Court.
C.L. No. 10/2009/IIIb-36/Admin ̳G', Dated: April 7, 2009

Upon consideration of the matters pertaining to strike of lawyers in the
Subordinate Court, the Hon'ble Court while taking serious view of such strikes
539
has been pleased to direct that stern action be taken against the strikers and at the
same time efforts should be made to look into their genuine grievances.

I am, therefore, in continuation of the Court's C.L. No. 112/Admin ̳G' dated:
Nov. 23, 1994, C.L. No. 126/Admin ̳G' dated: Dec. 9, 1994, C.L. No. 20/IIIb-36/Admin
 ̳G', dated: May 9, 1995, C.L. No. 35/IIIb-36/Admin ̳G', dated: 04.10.2004, directed to
request you to kindly ensure compliance of the directions as contained in the circular
letter.
8-A: Form of Dress or Robes to be worn by Advocates.
C.L. No. 33/2009/Admin. ̳G-II': Dated: July 16, 2009

In partial modification of the Circular Letter No. 46 Admin. ̳G' Section dated
30.10.2007 on the above subject, I am directed to convey the following directions of the
Hon'ble Court for strict compliance:-

The High Court in exercise of powers under Section 34(1) framed Rule 12
prescribing advocates' dress code for appearance in the High Court and subordinate
courts. Rule 12 is to the following effect:
12. Advocate, appearing before the Court shall wear the following dress:
1. Advocate other than lady advocate;
(a) Black buttoned up coat chapkan, Achakan or Sherwani, Barrister's
gown and bands or
(b) Black open collar coat, white shirt, white collar, stiff or soft, with
Barrister's gown and bands.
2. Lady Advocates:-
Regional dress of subdued colours with Barrister's gown and bands.‖

Use of the word ―shall‖ in Rule 12 leads no room for doubt about the mandatory
nature of the provisions making it compulsory for the advocates to wear prescribed dress.
In this regard it may also be mentioned that the High Court under powers of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution and under section 122 of the Code
of the Civil Procedure has also laid down the dress for the appearance of the advocates in
courts under Rule 615 of the General Rules (Civil) as under:-

Rule 615 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 read as under:-
All presiding officers of sessions and civil courts and pleaders appearing
before them shall wear a buttoned up coat, achkan or sherwani of a black colour.
They may wear an open neck coat of the same colour instead, but it they are not
entitled to use bands, they shall wear a black tie with it. During the summer, the
colour need not be black and a coat, achkan or sherwani of a light colour may be
worn. With the coat, trousers and with the achkan or sherwani, chooridar pyjama
or trousers shall be worn. Ladies appearing before the civil courts as pleaders
shall wear a black or a white sari and blouse.

They shall also wear distinctive as costumes as indicated below:-
540
(i) Presiding Officers
:a gown made after the pattern of Queen's
Counsel's gown of black silk or stuff with
bands.
(ii) Advocates
:a gown similar to a barrister's gown with
bands and
(iii) Pleaders and Vakils
:a gown similar to the gown worn by
Presiding Officers but without sleeves and
bands.
It is desired to wear a headdress, a turban may be worn.
Therefore,, I am directed to request you to kindly inform all the Judicial Officers,
Advocates, Pleaders & Vakils in the Judgeship under your administrative control and
they be asked for strictly following the dress code for abstemiousness and self-respect.

=========
541
CHAPTER - XIV
DISTRICT COURT COMPUTERISATION

1.
FACILITY OF COMPUTER CORRESPONDENCE THROUGH NIC FOR
ALL THE DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS OF THE STATE
C.L. No. 19/95 Dated 8 May, 1995

The Computer Center of the High Court has been connected with the NICNET
i.e. the National Network of the National Informatics Center (NIC). It has made us
capable of transmitting messages through Electronic Mail Services to you. This facility is
available at your end through your district centers of the NIC. For collecting and
delivering the messages and replies, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to direct
that a clerk be deputed on the regular basis by District Judges at their local centers of the
NIC. The State Informatics Officer, Lucknow, Dr. Rakesh Goel has permitted the use of
this facility by you and has issued necessary directions to the district centers of NIC in
U.P. You may kindly bring it to the notice of the local officer of the NIC and take their
help in establishing communication through NICNET.

I am, therefore, directed to request you to kindly depute one clerk at the local
center of the NIC of your district situated in Collectorate compound on the regular basis,
under intimation to the local officer of NIC to collect the messages regularly. You are
also requested to transmit your messages through the local center of the NIC to High
Court, (in addition to the normal mode of communication). Inter district communication
is also possible through NICNET and it should be availed of as and when required.
2.
PROJECT REPORT PREPARED BY NIC
C.L. No. 34/96 Dated 16th July, 1996

National Informatics Center, a Central Government Organisation working under
the Planning Department of Govt. of India has undertaken the job of computerization of
the courts all over the country. It has a local centre in each district of the state and it is
located in the collectorate compound or somewhere near it. The purpose of the
computerization of courts has two objectives. Firstly to streamline and simplify the
functioning of the registries of the Supreme Court of India, High Courts and Lower
Courts in the country. Secondly, to make the whole system transparent an information be
available to the end user i.e. the litigant at the nearest possible place of his/her
hometown. For achieving these two objectives, the National Informatics Centre has
prepared a phased plan. The project report relating to it is being enclosed herewith for
your detailed information and co-operation with the officers of NIC.

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has desired that the computerization work of
the courts be taken on top priority and the NIC should be given all necessary help to
establish various systems in subordinate courts and its linking with the High Court and
the Supreme Court. Here I may mention you that the NIC aims at solving your local
problems relating to fresh filing of cases, the pending cases, the administrative matters,
library, record room and other matters on a uniform pattern throughout the state so that
the computerized systems of one place may be inter-linked with the other and they be