The recent skirmish between Dehradun District Magistrate (DM) Savin Bansal and the Dehradun Bar Association has reached a critical point. On 4 April lawyers officially launched an agitation, declaring that all work in the Revenue Court would be suspended until the DM is transferred. This has to do with the strictures passed by the DM against senior lawyer and former Bar Association President Prem Chand Sharma. The action planned by the legal fraternity includes boycott of the DM’s court and suspension of all work at the Collectorate till the transfer takes place.
It may also be noted that a long-standing dispute involves the demand for additional land to construct lawyers’ chambers. While the administration previously sought suggestions from a 15-member committee and offered roughly 5 bighas of land, the Bar Association argued this was inadequate for the approximately 5,000 practicing advocates. This issue has also been raising temperatures. It is particularly related to lawyers strongly opposing the government’s plan to build a night shelter (Rain Basera) on land near the old court complex, insisting the space be used for legal infrastructure instead. The association has also criticised the administration’s perceived neglect of advocate welfare. This follows other high-profile controversies involving the DM, such as a protocol violation notice regarding Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and a formal complaint of harassment filed by the CEO of the Clement Town Cantonment Board in February 2026.
The strike has disrupted court operations, with advocates refusing to file petitions or appear for hearings until their demands are formally addressed. People are divided on the issue as Bansal is perceived as a rare official who has vigorously worked for the commoners’ welfare in a proactive manner. As such, voices are being raised by sections of the public and the media that no punitive action be taken. Instead, the matter should be resolved through interventions by the government and senior advocates. This is undoubtedly an unprecedented situation, as few bureaucrats would normally take such strict action against the legal community.
However, it can be stated that no one is above the law and the action that would be taken against an ordinary person’s behaviour should be applicable to ‘persons of eminence’. A panel should be constituted to look into the exact sequence of events and decide whether these justified the DM’s action. If it was justified, then the government should not accede to the demands. However, if it was an overreaction, perhaps a compromise could be arrived at. A hard-working and sincere official should not be discouraged from doing his job.
