Why Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh are abstaining from judicial work

Even as courts across the country crawl towards normalcy in the aftermath of a debilitating pandemic, the Oudh Bar Association and the Allahabad High Court Bar Association have been abstaining from court work since February 23..The root cause of the controversy is the establishment of the Education Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh. Here's a closer look at the chain of events that led to the boycott..2019 Education Tribunal Bill.In 2019, through the introduction of the UP Education Service Tribunal Bill, the State government sought to establish the Uttar Pradesh Education Services Tribunal at Lucknow. This caused dissatisfaction among lawyers, especially those practicing at the Allahabad Bench, who called for abstention for work.The 2019 Bill was opposed, not only because it sought to establish the Education Tribunal at Lucknow, but also because the State government allegedly bypassed the judicial process and diluted the writ jurisdiction of the High Court..Observations by the Allahabad High Court.Pursuant to the State government's move to establish the Education Tribunal at Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter. In doing so, a Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Misra and Sudhir Agarwal made the following observations:“State has to explain, whether it has policy of providing justice to the place nearer the litigants or it has policy of providing justice by creating a Centrally located Adjudicatory Forum in the State only at one place; if so, what are the considerations on which selection of such place is made. State must also explain as to whether it has taken into consideration the dictum laid down by Supreme Court time and again regarding the place of Tribunal at the place where jurisdictional High Courts are situated and if it denies establishment of Tribunal at the place where jurisdictional High Court is situated, what are the considerations which prevail with it to take such decision.”.Subsequently, the Oudh Bar Association and several lawyers from the Lucknow Bench challenged the above mentioned order before the Supreme Court. In their SLP, the lawyers stated "therefore there was no occasion to make an observation on merits at this stage. The question of establishment of Tribunal at Lucknow through Educational Act may be challenged as soon as same is enforced. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that any observation made by the High Court on merits of the case at this stage may prejudice the case of those who are supporting the establishment of Tribunal at Lucknow.".Education Tribunal at Lucknow: Allahabad HC order challenged in Supreme Court.2021 Bill.In the Budget Session of the State Assembly this year, the Uttar Pradesh government tabled another Bill called the Education Services Tribunal Bill of 2021, with some amendments and modifications. The 2021 Bill has been passed by the government, but is yet to be notified officially. Deputy Chief Minister Dinesh Sharma had reportedly promised the Allahabad Bar that the 'main seat' of the Tribunal would be established in Prayagraj.Now, the Education Service Tribunal Bill, 2021 has bifurcated the Education Tribunal, with the main bench being established in Lucknow. The government has proposed that the bench would sit in Lucknow for three days, and at Prayagraj for two days a week.Most of the provisions of the 2021 Bill are the same ones that were opposed when introduced in the 2019 Bill, but some modifications have been made..Overview of the 2019 Bill.In the 2019 Bill, Clause (3) and Clause (8) were opposed by the lawyers. Clause (3) states that the tribunal shall consist of 'administrative members' and some retired judges.Sub-clause (2) of Clause (3) reads,"The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson (Judicial), a Vice Chairperson (Administrative) and such other. Judicial and Administrative Members not less than three in each category as may be determined by the State Government."Furthermore, as per Clause (8) of the Bill, only the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals. This, the lawyers contend, dilutes the writ jurisdiction of High Court. It reads:"On and from the date from which. any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by the Tribunal in relation to service matters of teachers and non-teaching employees working in an educational institution, no court except the Supreme Court, shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to such service matters.".Controversy over the Principal Seat and jurisdiction.For matters that arise in Uttar Pradesh, the High Court Bench at Allahabad has wider jurisdiction in comparison to the Lucknow Bench. This is another reason why the Oudh Bar Association has been abstaining from work. It has been urged that the jurisdiction be re-distributed equally.Speaking to Bar & Bench, one of members of the of Oudh Bar Association said,"Jurisdiction is a very controversial issue, because someone who is living in Kanpur has to travel all the way to Allahabad rather than Lucknow, which itself is not logical."President of the Oudh Bar Association, Senior Advocate H Parihar said that there any only separate benches and no "principal seat" of the Allahabad High Court. He added,"In Naseeruddin case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Allahabad and Lucknow are two benches sitting at two places as such it can not be said that Allahabad is Principal Bench or principal seat of High Court of judicature at Allahabad."."We are fighting for the litigants in general as the litigants of the divisions mentioned in the resolution have to face great hardship in traveling to Allahabad by crossing Lucknow as they have to spend more money and time which frustrates the goal of constitution to provide speedy, cheap and easily accessible justice."Senior Advocate H Parihar.The ongoing strike.Both bar associations have been abstaining from work for the last 3-4 days. They have resolved to continue their protests till March 1. Here are the main reasons why each lawyers' body has resolved to do soOudh Bar AssociationThe Oudh Bar Association has been opposing the Education Tribunal Bill because earlier it was notified in the 2019 Bill that the Tribunal would be established in Lucknow, as the main bench. Now, the government has decided to bifurcate the sittings of the tribunal.The members propose that the main seat should be in Lucknow without any bifurcation of the Education Tribunal, as there is enough place/infrastructure to comply with the requirements. The resolution which was passed on February 23, reads " that there is a newly constructed huge building of HC, comprising of well furnished 55 Court rooms, but only 30 courts are functioning. "The resolution further states that the members are also concerned about the manner in which GST and Company Law Appellate Tribunals have been constituted. The government had earlier said that the seat of these tribunals would be at Lucknow, but till date nothing has been notified. Earlier this month, the Oudh Bar Association had also called a strike to oppose the order passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 9 in Writ Tax No. 655 of 2018, in which the Court directed the Union of India to constitute the Principal/State Bench of the GST Tribunal at Allahabad. It is contended that this order is in conflict with the order in Oudh Bar (Association) High Court, Lucknow v. Union of India. One of the members of the Oudh Bar informed Bar and Bench,"On the issue of jurisdiction and the establishment of Education Tribunal, we will not step back, our demands should be heard, or else we will continue this peaceful agitation till March 1 (for the time being).".Lucknow Bar Association decides to boycott ‘Judicial work’, opposes constitution of GST Tribunal State bench at Allahabad.The Allahabad High Court Bar Association The Allahabad Bar, on the other hand, has been opposing the establishment because of Deputy CM Dinesh Sharma's earlier assurance that the Principal Bench of the Education Tribunal would be established at Allahabad. When the Bill was passed by government, it was reported that it has been decided that the main bench would be established in Lucknow, not Allahabad.The members of the Governing Council contend that in Allahabad, there are around 14-15 courts which are dealing purely with education matters. Whereas in Lucknow, there are only 4-5 such courts. Thus, they contend that the main seat of the Tribunal should be established at Prayagraj. .President of Allahabad HCBA, Senior Advocate Amarendra Nath, said that the establishment of the Tribunal is problematic, not only because of the jurisdiction issue, but also because it deprives many lawyers, teachers and staff members of their livelihoods."We are the world's biggest democracy and the purpose is to serve equality. Judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy, the executives should follow the legislature and the the law should be made for the welfare of the people. Section 3 of the concerned bill talks about the members, which is also problematic, because of the members are either retired judges or civil servants making it an administrative block, which has curtailed the jurisdiction of High Court," Nath added..In view of the deadlock on the issue, both Bar Associations have resolved to continue striking. The lawyers will abstain from judicial work until their demands are taken up by the government. For the time being, the strikes have been extended till March 1..Read the Oudh Bar Resolution.Read the Allahabad HC Bar Resolution

Why Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh are abstaining from judicial work

Related Stories