1. In this matter three pleaders of Rajshahi Judge's Court have been called upon under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act to show cause why they should not be dealt with under Section 14 of the Act. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and Mr. A.N. Choudhury, counsel, who appeared on behalf of the pleaders. In the present case we do not propose to pass any sentence or take any action under Section 11, Lagal Practitioners Act, our reasons being first, that no untoward result followed from the act of the pleaders as has been admitted by the learned District Magistrate. The work of the Court was not hampered and it appears that the notice or manifesto signed by the pleaders did not have any appreciable effect in the locality. The learned Magistrate was willing to drop the proceedings if the pleaders admitted that their action had been wrong and he has referred this matter to us for the purpose of vindicating the principle involved; secondly, there is no evidence of the publication of the manifesto. It may be presumed that it was published; but then there is nothing on the record to show whether it was published and the extent to which it was published. Thirdly, that the pleaders who signed the manifesto are three out of more than one hundred pleaders practising in the Judge's Court at Rajshahi. They do not seem to occupy such an influential position as to persuade the litigants not to appear in Court as is clear from the fact that there was no stoppage of work of the Courts on that day.
2. Though in the circumstances of this particular case we are not inclined to take any action we express our strong disapproval of the conduct of the pleaders concerned. A legal practitioner, as any other person, has a right to entertain political opinions which may or may not be acceptable to the authorities. But having obtained license to practice in Courts, if he acts inconsistently with the position which he has obtained by virtue of the license granted to him, he abuses it and brings himself within the four corners of the Legal Practitioners Act. This was the view taken in Emperor v. Rajani Kanta Bose A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 515, Shankar Ganesh Dabir v. Secretary of State A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 351. It seems that the warning given by this Court in Bajani Kanta's case has had no effect. Though in the circumstances of this case we refrain from taking any action it must be understood as a rule that the action of legal practitioners counselling the public not to attend Court and-thereby interfering with the administration of justice is one which cannot be lightly dealt with. With these remarks we direct that no-further action be taken in this matter.