Courting trouble

The lawyers' claim that they paralysed courts across the state in the interest of clients, particularly the poor, has few takes. The men in black abstained from work from March 31 to April 9, protesting against the state government's decision to hike court fees. Lawyers of Patna and Purnia civil courts had already stopped work since March 14 when the new court fees came into force. That the stir did not have popular support was evident when the lawyers took out a procession and even went on a dharna. They did make a lot of brouhaha but failed to draw the crowd and transform into it into a people's movement. The men in black even decided to launch an awareness programme to drum up public support. But before this could materialize, Patna High Court took the fizz out of the plan by allowing the old court fee structure to continue till the PIL challenging the fee hike was disposed. Some lawyers though, viewed the agitation a needless embarrassment that the much-maligned community could have done without. "When a case was filed in the high court on February 28, challenging the hike in court fee, lawyers ought to have waited for the verdict. Strike creates distress to people. The stir impacted thousands of undertrials. Many remained behind bars because they could not move bail applications. I should add that I have no qualms with the protest issue. Court fees should be nominal, for justice is paramount obligation of the state, much before education and health care," said Patna High Court lawyer Arvind Kumar. Lawyer and PIL activist M P Gupta, however, feels his colleagues were right. "Litigants aren't aware of the hike and how it will impact them. To contest cases in court, paying the court fee is compulsory. A quantum hike in the fee affects the poor the most. Lawyers, therefore, took up the case in earnest." Many litigants did actually join the lawyers in the protest, even though it meant that the hearing of their cases got delayed. But they were far outnumbered by sceptics who believed lawyers had personal interest at stake. The four-fold hike in court fee for a petition (from Rs 5 to Rs 20) had bearing on lawyers because they are required to pay the differential from their own pocket in the absence of their clients. Lawyer Arwind Ujjawal rubbished this perception. "The stir was not for personal benefit. The state government would have been better advised to check the sale of counterfeit stamps that led to loss of crores. Instead, the government is hiking court fee to finance the justice delivery system. That is just not done. Article 39A of the Constitution provides for justice to even the poor. It is the task of lawyers to raise the issue as they are better aware of the law and the Constitution," he argued. Though the argument against court fee hike may have been valid, the stir that inconvenienced thousands of litigants and further delayed the justice system that is already grappling under the burden of pending cases, was turning the tide against the lawyers. "What the strike did was to stop the justice delivery system," an angry litigant said. The situation was particularly grim for those falsely accused in cases and awaiting bail. Realising this, a group of lawyers headed by senior defence counsel Krishna Prasad Singh, on April 8, sought early hearing of bail petitions at the high court. These lawyers had even decided that if the deadlock continued, they would attend court from April 10 in the interest of clients. Others in the community, too, sensed the mood and realized that if the stir continued, the tide could turn against them. Thus, when the high court directed the government to recast its court fee structure after talks with lawyers, it provided the perfect face-saver for the men in black to withdraw the agitation. The directive also came as a relief to the government that had been fending attacks from lawyers. While the government attempted to justify the hike, citing justice Shetty Committee report on how revenue could be augmented in the justice delivery system, lawyers hammered home the point that the state government ought not to have hiked the court fees in Bihar which is at the bottom of per capita income and has 60 per cent people living below the poverty line.
THE TIMES OF INDIA; 17 Apr 2008, 0129 hrs IST , Ravi Dayal , TNN