Why ‘special privilege’ for lawyers,asks social activist,files plea

Last week,to end the stalemate between the lawyers and Chandigarh Administration,a division bench comprising Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain had taken note of the “untoward incident” wherein a bunch of High Court lawyers had thrashed a Chandigarh Police head constable in full public gaze.

The High Court also stayed the investigation into the FIR registered by the Chandigarh Police against former additional advocate general Rupinder Singh Khosla and 19 other lawyers.

Goswami has submitted that an impression of “special status” has been created for lawyers. “An impression that lawyers are above the law to whom the normal procedure of law,including that of trial and investigation by prescribed state machinery,does not apply has been created,” reads the application.

“An affected member”,Goswami has submitted that a “special procedure should not be evolved to deal and system followed of investigation and trial,as in all other cases,should be followed in this matter too. Procedure as prescribed under the law must be followed”.

The application states that “Advocates Act gives no special privileges to advocates over and above the law under the Advocates Act. Rather they have greater responsibilities under the rules and codes prescribed under the said legislation”.

In a sharply worded application,copies of which were given in advance to the Chandigarh Administration on Sunday,the applicant has submitted that “collective might and power of a group of people who are collectively registered as a separate juristic person should not be allowed to browbeat the system by putting extraneous pressure and by forceful imposition of their collective bargaining power”. Such an impression is detrimental to the interest of “sovereignty of the state” and is against the interest of “democracy,the state and just rule of law”.

The application,which will come up for consideration on March 11 (Monday),reads that “many offences allegedly committed during the unfortunate incident come within the category of rioting,disobedience of lawful order and are triable as offences against the State and are therefore not compoundable as per the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code”.

The activist argues that instead of creating a “special procedure”,the investigation and trial may be fasttracked in the case. Also,it has been demanded that rather than quashing the FIR (registered against lawyers),if there is merit in demand for a cross-FIR against the head constable,the same should be registered.

In the concluding paragraph,it has been stated that “the matter is likely to affect the opinion about lawyers and judiciary and therefore requires appreciation from all dimensions since no lawyer is appearing before this court to present the other point of view”.