In a recent development, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Chandigarh challenging adverse remarks and directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Advocates Association accusing the presiding officer of harassment. The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud underscored the importance of maintaining a positive and respectful atmosphere between judicial officers and the bar association. The dismissal affirms the High Court’s emphasis on the need for gentleness in the interactions between DRT judges and lawyers promoting a cooperative and understanding relationship within the legal community.
CASE DETAILS:
M.M. Dhonchak v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association
SLP(C) No. 027317 of 2023
Supreme Court
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
BACKGROUND:
- In October 2022, the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association filed a writ petition accusing the Presiding Officer, M.M. Dhonchak of harassment.
- Subsequently, the Bar Association went on strike refusing to appear before him.
- The High Court disapproved of the strike but issued an interim order preventing mass case dismissals by the Officer.
- Due to strained relations, the High Court directed the Officer not to make unfavourable decisions until November 30, 2022.
- In response, Dhonchak filed an SLP before the Supreme Court which on December 2, 2022, modified the High Court’s order allowing him to proceed with hearings.
- The Supreme Court urged a cordial atmosphere between the Bar and Bench.
- On December 12, 2022, the matter was disposed of advising the DRAT Chairperson to make an independent decision.
CONTENTIONS:
Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, Advocate on Record representing the petitioner informed the court that the DRAT Chairman had completed the Bar Association’s primary request for an inquiry against him. The petitioner seeks to conclude the litigation before the High Court since the Chairman’s report is with the Search-cum-Selection committee.
Advocate on Record Siddharth Batra representing the Advocates Association raised concerns over the petitioner’s non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier order to create a positive atmosphere and restore cases. He expressed distress over the costs imposed by the petitioner in DRT cases citing an example of a 2 lakh rupees penalty for not filing written statements impacting the Bar members adversely.
OBSERVATIONS:
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) verbally emphasized the importance of kindness and sensitivity towards the circumstances of lawyers advising the petitioner who is a presiding officer not to take up cudgels against the bar association. The CJI highlighted that the presiding officer should focus on performing duties in Chandigarh maintaining a gentle approach and earning respect from the bar. The CJI also pointed out that the High Court had correctly directed the Union of India to provide the necessary infrastructure for hybrid hearings and recording of proceedings emphasizing the need for cooperation and understanding in dealing with the legal fraternity.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh bench. The petition sought to challenge the adverse remarks given by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in response to a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Advocates Association. The dismissal implies that the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s remarks and directions emphasizing the importance of maintaining a positive and respectful atmosphere between the presiding officer and the bar association.
