Orissa HC Advocates Protest Lawyer’s Promotion; Boycott Courts of Collegium Members

New Delhi: Members of the Orissa High Court Bar Association members continue to boycott the court of Chief Justice and two other collegium judges to protest against elevation of a lawyer, who they say is not a regular practitioner of the High Court, to the post of a judge.

The recommended lawyer has filed only four cases in the Orissa High Court in the last five years, and thus the association has taken an agitation path over the recommendation of his name.

According to Gopal Krushna Mohanty, President of the Orissa High Court Bar Association, this could be another case of favouritism among the collegium members in recommending names of the advocates for elevation.

‘Rampant Favouritism’

In the general body meeting of the Bar Association that was held on June 17, it was decided that abstaining from the courts of Chief Justice KS Jhaveri, Justice SK Mishra and Justice Kumari Sanju Panda by members would continue till June 26, when the next meeting is scheduled to be held.

A delegation of lawyers led by the association president, on May 16, had met the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and two other Collegium judges to air their dissent. The Chief Justice informed the delegation that the recommended person met the eligibility criteria, and had sufficient appearances and fillings in Court, Live Law reported.

“One of the judges of the collegium happens to be a relation of the lawyer whose name has been recommended,” Senior Advocate Gopal Krushna Mohanty told Newsclick, alleging favouritism among the collegium members.

The Constitution mandates that a person, in order to qualify for a High Court judge’s position must have a regular service in a High Court for at least 10 years. Neither is the recommended lawyer a regular person of the court, nor has he got a distinguished history of practicing law, said Mohanty, adding that there is no justification in recommending his name.

The collegium system has often been questioned for doing little in strengthening the independence of the judiciary.

Citing their dissatisfaction, the association has also submitted a memorandum to the President, Prime Minister, Union Law Minister and Chief Justice of India seeking their intervention.

The grievance has been forwarded to the Department of Justice. This has been confirmed by the Prime Minister’s Office’s reply to a letter and the Bar Association resolution accessed by the Newsclick.

Meanwhile, a delegation of the High Court Bar Association will meet the Chief Justice of India, other collegium judges of Supreme Court and Union Law Minister among other higher authorities at New Delhi for a discussion on the issue, the resolution added.

The Judiciary in Odisha

With only half of the sanctioned strength of judges, the Orissa High Court is facing a huge pendency of cases due to the absence of judges for years. Newsclick spoke to another Senior Advocate, Lakshmi Dhar Pangari, who practices in the Orissa High Court.

He informed Newsclick that the sanctioned strength of judges in the Orissa High Court is 27, out of which only 13 judges, including the Chief Justice, are currently working.

According to a TOI report, the last appointment of a judge in the Orissa High Court was done in November last year after a sole candidate was found suitable by the Supreme Court collegium out of the 12 names recommended by the Orissa High Court collegium.

Higher judiciary vacancy has alarming consequences on the justice dispensing structure. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, accessed on June 17, the total number of pending cases in Orissa High court is 1,53,326.

The real consequences due to non-availability of judges is always suffered by the people of the state, added Pangari, as it leads to delay in case proceedings.

The issue of non-appointment of judges in the courts caught media attention in April 2016 when the then Chief Justice of India, T S Thakur, in the presence of the Prime Minister, had lamented the government’s inaction in increasing the number of judges.