‘Will demoralise other judges also’: Tribunal chief moves SC against order on Bar association’s petition

“The sum and substance of the impugned order in virtually allowing the writ petition is indicative of the fact that a judge shall hold his office only during the pleasure of the Bar and it is difficult to live in Rome and fight with the pope,” he contended.

Dhonchak also stated that “people who had no briefs ruled the roost most of the time in the Bar associations and were instrumental in reaching the decisions of the Bar”. “In this scenario, the judge has to deviate from his objective and independent functioning to advance the cause of justice and has to play second fiddle to the advocates notwithstanding the fact that playing to the gallery/second fiddle while discharging judicial functions is not the task of a judicial personage and the same is in contravention of the oath of office a judge takes at the time of joining his office,” he contended in the petition.

Dhonchak also submitted that the tribunal’s working had been brought almost to a grinding halt for about 50 days because of previous judicial interdiction by the high court at the DRT Bar Association’s instance. “Yet, his disposal was at number three in the country,” he said.

Dhonchak asked how could “it be sufficient to give the death knell to his career, credibility and reputation earned in a period of more than three decades” even if a judge made an error “without any mala fide”.

“Joining heads by unscrupulous elements against a straightforward and honest judge with a view to getting rid of him, especially when his part of jurisdiction also includes the state of Haryana, including Gurugram and Union Territory of Chandigarh, is not a new phenomenon in this age of degenerating standards and values in public life,” he contended further.