Concerned about the reduction of the strength of the Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has "unanimously resolved" to request its members to abstain from work on Monday, after the Supreme Court collegium's recommendation proposing to transfer Justice Gaurang Kanth to the Calcutta High Court from Delhi. In a resolution passed on Thursday, the body said it "strongly resents" the recommendation and that the transfer would “adversely affect the dispensation of justice on account of consequent reduction of the existing strength”. The resolution passed on Thursday states that while no attention is being paid “by all concerned” regarding the process of filling up existing vacancies in the Delhi High Court, the transfer of a sitting judge “is being made which will further reduce the existing strength of judges in the high court”. Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, President, Executive Committee DHCBA said, "The vacancies at the bench are increasing in the HC. However it is not an individual's case, it is the sentiment of the bar. The feeling of being left out. Any judge who is elevated from the bar, has roots in the bar.the biggest stakeholder in appointments is actually the bar. As the biggest stakeholders they feel that they are not being considered.". As on Friday, the HC has 46 judges though the sanctioned strength is 45 permanent Judges and 15 Additional Judges. Anugrah Ekka, practising at the High Court since the past seven years said, “We lawyers are in complete support with the resolution passed by DHCBA. The actual bench strength of the Delhi high court is 60 and after a long gap, appointments were made to the bench. Right now we have the strength of 46 judges.” The resolution called the transfer “a rarest of rare case” and requested the collegium to "revisit" its recommendation. The SC Collegium last week had proposed the transfer of Justice Kanth to the Calcutta High Court for "better administration of justice". It said in its resolution on Wednesday that Chief Justices of the Delhi HC and Calcutta HC had "conveyed their no objection to" the proposal. Justice Kanth had made a representation to the collegium to the High Courts of “Madhya Pradesh or Rajasthan or any other neighbouring State". The collegium resolution states that it did not “find any merit in the request made by him” and reiterated its July 5 recommendation to transfer Justice Kanth to the Calcutta High Court. Meanwhile in a statement issued on Friday, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) issued a statement welcoming the collegium resolution stating that the "transfer is a justified and welcome step towards ensuring accountability of the higher judiciary". "CJAR therefore welcomes the decision of the Collegium to finally transfer Justice Kanth out of Delhi, even though the Collegium has not made its detailed reasons for initiating such transfer, public. CJAR deprecates the decision taken by the Delhi High Court Bar Association and some advocates of the Delhi High Court, to call for a strike and abstain from work on account of Justice Kanth’s transfer, and thereby attempt to interfere with the smooth administration of justice," the statement also says. Lawyer Naman Joshi, who has been practising for over nine years, said that while he supported the bar’s right to voice its views just as the collegium has the right to recommend transfers, he was worried about the inconvenience to litigants if work is stopped. "It is within the collegium's power and prerogative to transfer judges and once you accept judicial nomination, this is I guess a part and parcel of the job. I have only appeared before him two and three times and he has been excellent. Hopefully he will come back.. My only issue with strikes is that it hurts the litigants the worst. Any matter which is now listed on Monday will most likely be adjourned to September, October, maybe even November. I'm not sure how many of those matters would have benefitted from that hearing on Monday but even if some could have benefited loose out then that's a disadvantage,” he said. Shubhanshu Gupta, partner at Prakant Law Offices who began his practising in 2015 recalled, "The last time a strike of serious magnitude happened was in July 2015, with respect to the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.” At the time a series of strikes, protests and meetings had marked the three years since the High Court approved a proposal to increase its pecuniary jurisdiction to Rs 2 crore, the Indian Express had reported in July 2015. Back then cases valued at up to Rs 20 lakh were heard before the district courts, with cases of any higher value going to the High Court. Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) had called a strike from July 22, 2015 to “register a strong protest” against tabling of the Delhi High Court Amendment Bill, 2014, without the Commercial Courts Bill being tabled along with it, the Indian Express had reported. The bill after it was passed by both houses of the parliament, received President's assent and was brought into force on October 26, 2015 as the Delhi High Court Amendment Act 2015.
