SUPREME COURT REFUSED TOCONSIDER BAIL APPLICATION OFLAWYERS ARRESTED FOR VANDALISMIN ODISHA COURT PREMISES

The Supreme Court in the case M/s. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. And Ors observed and has refused to entertain a bail application of the lawyers who had indulged in vandalism in court premises during their strike demanding formation of new Benches of the Orissa High Court. It has been submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Action Committee (CAC) of all Bar Associations of Western Odisha that about 30 advocates, which includes 4 women, being behind the bars since the past 45 days. It has been submitted by
him that it has been refused by the District Court for enlarging the advocates on bail. The bail applications of them are now before the Odisha High Court. It has also been claimed by the
counsel appearing that the High Court has deferred the hearing on several oc-
casions. The bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka observed
and stated we are not a bail court’, wherein the counsel to pursue the matter before the High Court. The bench headed by Justice Kaul remarked that no indulgence. Thus, Apply
there. A strike was called in December 2022 by the District Bar Association, Sambal-
pur, wherein demanding the establishment of a permanent Bench of Orissa High Court in Sambalpur district had gone rogue when there were massive clashes which erupted between the lawyers and the police. Therefore, the orders have been passed by the Supreme Court to
the State Government of Odisha and the State Police for taking stringent actions against striking lawyers. However, apart from sus- pending the license of the concerned advocates, the police arrests were also being made. The bench has also been critical of the conduct of the advocates who had indulged in vandalism and had also asked the authorities to not ‘moddlycoddle’them. Therefore, the court also endeavour for reminding the advocates that their duty is to assist the litigants in attaining justice and not hinder the litigants cause. The court stated that, we need to impress upon the legal fraternity that the privilege for having a license of a lawyer is to use it responsibly. The litigants are effected by the disruption of normal functioning. The same is being said in the general context not with respect to the incident. Therefore, the act of burn- ing effigies and browbeating the Advocate General, the members of Bar Council of India and the members of Bar Council of the State was strongly being condemned by the Bench.
The counsel appearing for CAC had implored the Bench to grant expeditious hearing of the bail applications of the lawyers. Further, the request had been declined by the bench.
The bench observed that a request is being made that their bail applications be
considered as per law.