Boycott of proceedings questioned



The petitioner, M P Gundappa of Bangalore, said that he was a litigant in various cases pending before the High Court and the City Court. The Bangalore Advocates Association’s decision to boycott the courts on November 9 was opposed to the principles enunciated by the SC and the HC.

He appealed to the court to declare the boycott as illegal. Senior counsel Padmanabh Mahalay said that the majority of the lawyers felt that they should abstain from work on Monday and even though they knew it was against the Supreme Court’s direction, they did not wish to go against the resolution passed by the Advocates’ Association.  Mahalay, along with K M Nataraj, were appointed as amici curiae for the case.

Justice Ajit J Gunjal opined that the petitioner’s request was not private but public in its effect. Stating that it was not an individual petition but a PIL, he referred it to a double bench. The matter is likely to be heard on Saturday.

Liked the story?

  • 0

    Happy
  • 0

    Amused
  • 0

    Sad
  • 0

    Frustrated
  • 0

    Angry