Telangana high court advocates resolve to boycott judge

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court Advocates’ Association on Thursday unanimously passed a resolution to boycott the court of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya (Court No 5), protesting the alleged misconduct towards members of the bar and alleged imposition of heavy costs on the members while dealing with cases.During a packed gathering at the HC, the association urged acting chief justice Sujoy Paul not to allocate any judicial duties to Justice Bhattacharya and appealed to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India for her immediate transfer from the Telangana high court. Several members of the bar, including seniors, shared their experiences in Justice Bhattacharya’s court.The association, during a general body meeting, decided to boycott Justice Bhattacharya’s court starting from Monday, said association president A Jagan.

“The resolution will be in force until suitable action is taken against her. We will soon meet the CJI and present our grievance,” added Jagan.

Senior counsel V Raghunath claimed that their efforts to convey their grievances to the judge proved futile. “She did not give us an opportunity to present the facts before her,” said Raghunath, former president of the bar association.Jagan alleged that the judge was passing directions to the registry to appoint legal aid counsels even without the consent of the clients.

Another senior counsel, Kota Subba Rao, claimed that Justice Bhattacharya had imposed a fine of Rs3 lakh on him when he tried to withdraw an appeal in a motor vehicle accident case. Senior counsel P Prabhakar Reddy also claimed that in a criminal appeal seeking bail, Justice Bhattacharya imposed costs on him when he filed a petition to set aside an order directing the registry to assign a legal aid counsel in his case. “In this case, the bail application was heard more than 35 times,” he claimed.Another senior counsel, Chikkudu Prabhakar, said that the judge was not giving an opportunity to the advocates even to argue their case and was passing remarks that the advocates were not prepared to argue and adjourning the matter.