The proposed relocation of the Gauhati High Court to an area currently 20 km away from its present location has sparked public discord between the Bar Council and the state government and a section of the judiciary, leading to the Advocate General filing criminal contempt petitions against three members of the Bar, including its president. The petition, moved by Advocate General Devajit Saikia, was Tuesday heard by a bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Unni Krishnan, which reserved its order. The petition seeks action against advocate Pallavi Talukdar and senior advocates Anil Kumar Bhattacharya and Kamal Nayan Choudhury, who is the president of the Bar association, for statements made during a protest against the relocation on March 24. The Gauhati High Court Bar Association has been opposing the state government’s project to relocate the High Court from the heart of the city to Rangmahal in North Guwahati, across the Brahmaputra, saying that it would be hard to access for both lawyers and members of the public. The president of the Bar association, Choudhury, has called the relocation decision “Tughlaqi”. In a press conference earlier in the year, he said that when the Bar association had expressed its opposition to Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma last year, “he had told us that when work is completed on the bridge being built over the Brahmaputra to North Guwahati, he will go along with us to Rangmahal and only after seeing how much time this takes, the government will take a decision on whether they will do land acquisition for it.” This opposition to the relocation has been growing louder in the past few weeks following a post on the Assam Chief Minister's official X handle on March 8 stating that he held a meeting “to review the master plan of the newly constructed Gauhati High Court at Rangmahal” in the presence of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam of the Gauhati High Court. This has been followed by a series of incidents bringing the discord over this issue out in the public. The Bar association had held a sit-in at the High Court premises, citing a lack of consultation and transparency in the relocation process. During the protest, advocates Talukdar and Bhattarcharya attributed the decision to vested interests — the area proposed for the relocation is part of Sarma’s Jalukbari constituency. They also questioned the integrity of Justice Suman Shyam, asking why he was present in the meeting with the Chief Minister along with the Chief Justice. These statements have come under the radar of the state government and the High Court. A few days later, Advocate General Saikia resigned from the Bar association saying there might be a conflict of interest over “diametrically opposite stands of the Gauhati High Court and Government of Assam on one side, while GHCBA on the other”. After this, on April 3, the Gauahti High Court issued a rare press release through its Registrar General against “misleading projections made by a section of the Bar acting with vested interests”. The statement said that the meeting had been on other issues such as creation of judicial officer posts and funds for paperless courts, and that after the meeting, officials of the Public Works Department “offered to make a powerpoint presentation” on the possible infrastructure at Rangmahal. According to the statement, the Chief Justice then said that the presentation would be placed before the full court of the Gauhati High Court before presenting any opinions. “The said section of members had falsely propagated before the media that the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his Brother Judge had secretly met the Hon’ble Chief Minister and clandestinely agreed for shifting of the Gauhati High Court… False statements were made that decision to shift to Rangmahal was on account of vested interest. Personal attacks were made against the Honb’le Judge accompanying the Honb’le Chief Justice with objectionable, offensive and obnoxious remarks without basis… Such statements lower the dignity, majesty and image of the judiciary in the eyes of the people and raises doubts in the minds of the people as regards the independence and impartiality of the judiciary,” said the press release. On March 26, the bar association had also issued a notice distancing itself from the statements made by the two lawyers but both the Gauhati High Court's press release and the AG's contempt petition question why it did not “condemn” the statements or take action against the members. Saikia cited the same statements while moving the criminal contempt charges, claiming that they were made with “consent and connivance” of Choudhury in his position as president of the Bar association.
