*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION No.23065 OF 2010 % 07.12.2010 In Re 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by it’s the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Registrar General 3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 4. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 6. The Bar Council of A.P., Hyderabad, rep.by its Secretary, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad. 7. A.P.High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. …Respondents Whereas the Taken up Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an Order, direction, or a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 5 to take steps forthwith to regulate to entry of Advocates and litigant public into the High Court premises; Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 : Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, Advocate General Counsel for Respondent No.2: Smt M.Bhaskara Lakshmi Counsel for Respondent No.6: Sri A.Ajay Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.7: Sri G.Vidya Sagar < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. 287 US 45 (1932) 2. 2001 (1) Law Summary 13 3. Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v Bar Council of India, (1995) 1 SCC 732) 4. (1995) 5 SCC 716 5. 493 US 411 : 107 L.Ed., 2d 851 (1989) 6. (2006) 9 SCC 295 : (1995) 1 SCALE 6 7. (2001) 1 SCC 118 : AIR 2001 SC 207 8. (2003) 2 SCC 45 : AIR 2003 SC 739 9. (2006) 9 SCC 295 : AIR 2005 SC 2442 10. (2009) 8 SCC 106 11. AIR 1988 SC 1883 12. AIR 1967 SC 1 13. 475 US 560 (1986) 14. 544 US 622 (2005) 15. 1 Wheat 363 16. 135 US 1 (1890) 17. Nand Lal Balwani, In Re ((1999) 2 SCC 743) 18. Leela David (6) v State of Maharashtra ((2009) 10 SCC 337) * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION No.23065 OF 2010 07.12.2010 BETWEEN: In Re 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by it’s the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Registrar General 3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 4. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad. 5. The commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 6. The Bar Council of A.P., Hyderabad, rep.by its Secretary, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad. 7. A.P.High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION No.23065 OF 2010 ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) I Prologue This ‘matter extraordinaire’ is an extraordinary case. It stands apart from many peculiar cases that have been resolved by this summit Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, in its more than five decades long journey in striving to dispense justice with constitutional vision. The adjudication in this case is concerned with the protection of life and liberty of people and property. Hence, we shall deal with competing concerns with delicate touch. To enter a caveat, though we are seriously concerned; the standard of judicial review is neither strict scrutiny nor is it a dialogic. It is only the deferential judicial review, to find solution, at least, for the present. Indian democracy can neither survive nor sustain without an independent judiciary. A well administered, organized and managed hierarchical Court structure and user friendly judicial management system is sine qua non for democratic polity which “solemnly resolved” the Constitutional rule of law. To promote such rule, there has to be thus no nonsense ‘Court Security System’ with ‘battlefit preparedness’ as mission and firmly established confidence invoking special security processes and procedures as vision. It is necessary that all judicial participants and stakeholders – Judges, advocates/their clerks, Court staff, Government Pleaders, Public Prosecutors, Treasury officials, prison officials and not the least citizens in legal distress; can trust and have faith in the judicial branch. There is no gainsaying that the right to seek redressal in an independent judicial forum is a human right recognized by International Bill of Human Rights and the Constitution of India (Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 2(3) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Sections 2(d) and 2(f) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Articles 14, 21, 32 and 226). This case thus in way is an opportunity to instill the confidence in the people that the High Court of the State would nurture and nourish that belief, by protecting the people seeking justice when it is denied or delayed by other two great organs of the State. II The Genesis In the third quarter of this year, a group of lawyers (a sui generis Joint Action Committee or JAC) started agitation. They demanded that 42% of the positions of Government counsel must go to the advocates coming from nine Telangana Districts. Three of their members commenced hunger strike. This led to surcharged emotions among JAC supporters. They gave a call for boycotting the High Court. That, as per the law of the land, lawyers have no right to abstain or boycott the Courts is a different matter. ‘Law’ and ‘Rule of Law’ take a backseat when agitations turn violent. Reason subordinates to emotion and “no holds barred” bug inflicts maverick front liners fighting for the cause of perceived inadequate justice. This manifested on 14th, 15th and 16th of September, 2010 AD. All the Judges holding the Court have had to rise as the lawyers were coerced to go out of the Court. Three Courts and Hon’ble Presiding Judges were victims of violent group of lawyers enforcing boycott call. Furniture was broken, electrical fittings were damaged, the files and missiles were thrown at, and abuses were hurled at the Hon’ble Judges. The violence of protestors also extended to the Chambers of learned Judges as well as the Registrars of the High Court. Instances of manhandling of well- meaning lawyers – without gender discrimination – were also reported. There was convenient disappearance of lawyers’ representatives and leaders of the Bar. The situation was such that nobody was willing to listen to reason or heed to good sense to ensure dignified and peaceful Court functioning. The historical fact, as above – like in any other; is hearsay to start with. It also does not find in the pleadings but during the day long non- adversarial Court deliberations, these things remain unrebutted. As many as 24 photographs (6” x 4”) are placed before us. They narrate tell-tale horrific story sufficient to prove historical facts relevant to the case. On 16.09.2010, the Hon’ble Chairman of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (BCAP) gave a Press Note, which reads as under. PRESS NOTE After observing the agitations being made by the Advocates for the last few days in the premises of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it is most unfortunate that under the guise of agitation, some of the Advocates are resorting to damage the furniture and equipment in the Court Halls. It is also observed that the agitators have thrown books, abused Hon’ble Judges and the staff, which is viewed seriously by the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh makes an appeal to all the Advocates who are participating in the agitation not to indulge in such activities and the same is nothing but interfering with the smooth functioning of the administration of justice. Therefore, the Bar Council hereby condemns the action of the agitators which is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. (emphasis supplied) On 17.09.2010, seven Hon’ble members of BCAP met in an emergency meeting and passed the following resolution. The Bar Council in an Emergency Meeting held on 17.09.2010 hereby condemns the attack of Advocates in the Court Halls, abusing the Hon’ble Judges and Advocates’ throwing Books on Hon’ble Judges and Court Staff and indulging in damaging the Books and Furniture in Court Halls and hurling slogans in the Court Premises. The said Acts amount to interfering with the smooth functioning of Administration of Justice and further the same is contrary to provisions of Advocates Act, 1961, and against the various Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Bar Council has decided to take suo motu action against the Advocates who involved in the indecent behaviour in Court Halls, on the basis of information received. Further, it is resolved to convene an Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Bar Council on 24.09.2010 (Friday) at 12.00 noon, in this regard. (emphasis supplied) As resolved on 17.09.2010, the Extraordinary General Body Meeting of BCAP was held on 24.09.2010 at 12 noon. The resolution passed therein, reads as under. 1. It is resolved to ratify and approve the earlier resolution, dated 17.09.2010 (Sri M.Rajender Reddy, Member, Bar Council of India expressed his dissent for the above resolutions). 2. The Bar Council resolved to take action against the Advocates who involved in indecent behaviour in Court Halls on the basis of the information received from different sources, to that effect and the Bar Council further resolved to constitute a Committee consisting of Sri A.Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, Bar Council, Sri D.Hanumantha Rao, Sri N.Ramachander Rao, Sri S.Krishna Mohan, Sri B.Devanand and Sri K.Chidambaram, Members, Bar Council of A.P., to take further steps in the matter and put proposals before the Bar Council in the next meeting. 3. The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh hereby resolved to appeal all the Advocates who are participating in the Agitations, shall not enter into the Court premises and not to indulge in giving slogans, not to comment against the Judge/Judges and colleague Advocates. The violation of the same will be viewed seriously. (Sri M.Sahodhar Reddy, Member, Bar Council expressed his dissent for the above resolutions). (emphasis supplied) Be it on record that in addition to Court No.6, Court No.32 (Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) and Court No.27 (Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) were attacked. As a result of hooliganism, the furniture was broken in the Court and Judges’ Chambers. The photographic evidence strongly probablises that there was unprecedented violence in the temples of Justice. Court Reacts The constitutional Court should react to the injustice. Any interruption of Courts proceedings in discharge of constitutional duty of dispensing justice, “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”, is certainly injustice to the people of the State. On 15.09.2010, Sri Justice Eswaraiah and Sri Justice Noushad Ali were holding the Court, when advocates in robes or otherwise (now they say most of them are not members of A.P.High Court Advocates’ Association (HCAA) entered Sixth Court, raised slogans, threw missiles at the Bench and committed sinful acts. Then the learned Bench suo motu has taken up the case while directing the Office to register the taken up case as a writ petition showing Government of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, the Principal Secretary to Government in Home Department, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, BCAP and HCAA as respondents. Their Lordships also passed the following order. When the Court proceedings were going on, at about 12.45 P.M. i.e. 15.09.2010, a group of Advocates in their robes forcibly entered into the Court Hall raising slogans “Jai Telangana” and disrupted the proceedings at the height of their voice and threatened the Judges to rise and retire. The Advocates did not heed to the advice of the Bench to maintain decorum of the Court. They resorted to switching off the lights and threw cause lists on the Bench even while the Judges were sitting holding the Court. They resorted to breaking the glasses of the almyrahs and damaged the chairs and mikes in the Court Hall. The Advocates entered into the Court Hall with a motive to create panic and to see that the Court should not function at any cost. It is brought to our notice that similar incidents have occurred in two other Court Halls today. Under these circumstances, it has become impossible for the Court to function. We are constrained to observe that these incidents which are recurring often pose a threat to the majesty of law. We observe that preventing the functioning the High Court would impact the judicial system affecting the State’s Highest Constitutional Judicial Institution. We are bound to observe that such impact may perhaps lead to constitutional break down. We are therefore constrained to treat the incident that has occurred in our Court as a “taken up” case and direct the Registry to register this as a Writ Petition and post the same on 17.09.2010 and serve the notices to all the respondents through special messenger. In the circumstances as above, in the meanwhile, we direct Respondents Nos.1 to 5 to take steps forthwith to regulate the entry of the Advocates and the litigant public into the High Court premises. Those Advocates, whose cases are listed in the day’s cause list be permitted to enter High Court precincts on production of the identity cards issued by Respondent No.7 and the clients connected with the said cases accompanying the said Advocates alone shall be permitted to enter into the High Court precincts. Authorized Advocate-Clerks alone shall be permitted to enter the premises for the purpose of filing the cases in the Registry. Parties who have been directed to appear before the Courts by Court Orders and Government Officers also be permitted to enter on proper identification by the concerned Advocates or the Government Pleaders, as the case may be. The Respondents shall ensure the presence of adequate police in the Court Premises and also near every Court Hall. The Respondents shall also further ensure that there shall be no slogan shouting within the High Court precincts. The Respondents shall ensure implementation of this order. (emphasis supplied) Further Proceedings On 17.09.2010, the matter was called again. The Bench, on hearing the counsel for all the respondents passed the order, which we quote. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1, 3 to 5, Sri Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, Ms.S.Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and Sri Goverdhan Reddy, Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates’ Association, 7th Respondent. The learned counsel advanced their arguments and expressed difficulties of some advocates, such as, Junior advocates and the senior designated advocates while entering into the Court premises. It was also brought to our notice that even in the Supreme Court of India the right of entry is being regulated in an appropriate manner and they sought time for filing written submissions. In this regard, Sri Goverdhan Reddy, Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates’ Association, submits that he would file written submissions on Monday for appropriate measures to be taken for proper functioning of the Court. Keeping in view of the various submissions made by the respective counsel, we direct the respondents to permit the designated senior advocates, Chairman, Members and staff of the A.P. State Bar Counsel, President and the office bearers of the A.P. High Court Advocates’ Association to enter into the premises of the High Court, in addition to those already permitted by orders dated: 15.09.2010. Post on 20.09.2010 at 2.15 P.M. Three days thereafter, the HCAA moved W.V.M.P.No.4366 of 2010 praying to vacate and/or modify the interim orders, dated 17.09.2010. Inter alia it was pleaded in the affidavit of the Secretary that the cause list does not contain the names of all the counsel who accepted Vakalat, that the designated senior advocates do not accept Vakalats, that the counsel are required to visit various branches in the Registry, and that junior advocates have to represent the cases and that if restrictions are imposed on the entry of the advocates, it would result in the cases going unrepresented besides causing inconvenience to the lawyers. Therefore, they sought for modification of vacation of the orders by incorporating the following. (i) permit the counsel on production of the Identity Cards issued by the A.P.Bar Council/A.P.High Court Advocates’ Association to enter into the Court premises; (ii) permit advocates move from one Court to another and Registry without insisting appearance of their names in the daily/weekly cause list; and (iii) permit the authorized Advocates’ Clerks/Drivers to enter into the premises as well as the Court Hall areas to assist the counsels in carrying books, files etc. On 20.09.2010, after hearing all the learned counsel, the Division Bench in modification of earlier orders, issued the following directions to respondents 1 to 5 to regulate the entry of advocates and litigant public into the Court. (1) The Advocates whose cases are listed in the Day’s Cause list/ Weekly List be permitted to enter the High Court precincts on production of the Identity Cards issued by the A.P. State Bar Council/ A.P. High Court Advocates Association and the clients connected with the said cases accompanying the said Advocates alone shall also be permitted to enter into the High Court precincts. The Advocates whose cases are listed in the Day’s cause list/weekly list with one or two junior colleagues on record may be permitted to enter into the High Court Premises. (2) The designated senior Advocates and along with them two assisting Advocates authorized by them shall be permitted. The President and Office Bearers of the A.P. High Court Advocates Association and the staff shall be permitted to enter into the High Court Premises. The Chairman, members and staff of the A.P. Bar Council shall be permitted into the High Court premises. The officials and staff of the State Bank of Hyderabad, High Court Branch, shall also be permitted to enter into the premises. (3) The Authorized Advocates’ Clerks may be permitted to enter the High Court premises for the purpose of filing the cases and other related works in the Registry. (4) The parties who have been permitted to appear before the Courts by Court Orders and Government Officers may also be permitted to enter on proper identification by the concerned Advocates or Government Pleaders, as the case may be. (5) The Advocates who would like to move the lunch motions may also be permitted by the Registry on submitting the appropriate case papers. (6) The intending candidates for their enrolment as Advocates with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh may also be permitted on proper verification by the Secretary of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. (7) The Respondents shall ensure the presence of adequate Police in the Court Premises and also near every Court Hall. (8) All the Respondents shall ensure that there shall be no slogans, shouting or any untoward incident to be taken place within the High Court Premises. The respondents shall ensure the implementation of these orders. The Division Bench while issuing directions as above also directed the Registry to place the matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice (HCJ) for necessary directions to list the matter before the appropriate Bench. Thereafter, on 01.11.2010, HCAA filed W.P.M.P.No.34829 of 2010 for modifying the order, dated 20.09.2010. BCAP filed W.V.M.P.No.5137 of 2010 on the same day seeking to vacate the orders, dated 20.09.2010. In the meanwhile as many as 21 lawyers practising in this Court filed W.P.M.P.(SR) No.125784 of 2010 to intervene in the taken up case. When these matters are listed before us, with the consent of all the learned counsel appearing in the case, we finally heard the matter on 08.11.2010. III Contentions and Submissions BCAP and HCAA made the following submissions. The Court’s duty and right to protect itself and all those who come to them cannot be denied. The Supreme power vests in the HCJ to make Rules, Regulations and guidelines for the purpose of security system. As of now, there are no such rules or regulations. The restrictions now in operation were imposed in obedience to the orders of this Court, when situation was emotionally surcharged and some of the advocates who are not members of the HCAA resorted to violence interrupting the Court proceedings. Such a situation does not exist now nor recurred since then. Therefore, all the conditions imposed on the entry, movement and parking of the vehicles by the advocates should be withdrawn. As and when violence erupts the Court can again take such drastic steps to prevent untoward acts by a few advocates. Till a regular Court Security System is in place, status quo ante as it existed on 13.09.2010 may be restored. All the advocates are facing inconvenience to move from one Court to other Court because of the present space constraints in the Court due to the fire accident that occurred on 31.08.2009. All the advocates who have drivers may be allowed to get dropped and send their cars to the parking lot and those advocates who do not have drivers may be allowed to park the cars near the heritage building as the HCAA has already issued identification cards as well as parking stickers to all the needy advocates and therefore, there is no chance of non-advocates parking their vehicles near the heritage building. The present parking area is uneven, not levelled, strewn with pebbles, granite slabs and debris. It would be impossible to all the advocates to park their cars in such area and walk more than 100 meters to attend to their work. Even in the Supreme Court where there are security procedures, the cars are allowed near and adjoining the building. M/s.G.Vidyasagar and E.Ajay Kumar Reddy dispassionately plead that the High Court being a place where many people come for redressal of their many grievances, strict enforcement of security measures would result in putting hurdles denying the system of open Court and public hearing. Lastly, they submit that the High Court Security System covering all aspects may be evolved in consultation with the HCAA and till then, the advocates of the association may be allowed to discharge their functions without any inconvenience. The standing counsel for High Court Smt.Bhaskara Lakshmi and Senior Advocate, Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, appearing for interveners made the following submissions. As the Highest Court of the State, it has a duty to provide security to all those who come to the Court for their business. While doing so, “inconvenience”, if any, is immaterial and must be ignored. As and when there was a call for boycotting the Courts by a group of advocates, the Court initiated security measures. When they were relaxed, without there being a valid resolution by the general body of the Bar Association, a group of lawyers representing organizations from outside the High Court barged into the Courts and created violent scenes by damaging the furniture in the Courts, gave a call and in their zeal to enforce the boycott have beaten up their dissenting brethren. The lives of those advocates who are opposing the call for boycott were in danger. The Courts were targeted ignoring professional duty to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court. Therefore, there should be a proper security system notwithstanding any perceived inconvenience to any of the persons. They also submit that though the Constitution vests the supreme power of administering the High Court in the HCJ, this Court is not powerless to direct security measures pending necessary orders by the HCJ. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel, also raised the question of advocates boycotting the Courts on one pretext or the other. He submits that when the law of the land prohibits the boycotts and strikes by the advocates for any reason, the violence created in the Court Halls and within the Court premises, by persons of various organisations with connivance of some of the advocates practising in this Court must be dealt with severely and the Court may not assume normalcy. The learned Advocate General for State of Andhra Pradesh submits that the majesty of this Court must be upheld in order