Back
The End of the 'Strike Culture'? High Court Cracks Down on Lucknow Bar Protests
In a significant move to protect the integrity of the , the has declared the eight-day strike by the "." The controversy, which saw members of the Central and abstain from work in protest of a municipal anti-encroachment drive, has now culminated in a stern judicial warning regarding the sanctity of the courtroom.
The Spark: Demolitions and 'Lathis' The dispute began on , when local authorities attempted to remove 72 identified illegal encroachments at the Chakbast Crossing, near the district court complex. While 14 structures were cleared, the mission was halted by heavy obstructions from protesting lawyers.
Matters escalated further when videos surfaced showing an advocate distributing plastic lathis —strikingly similar to those carried by the police—to fellow lawyers, accompanied by rhetoric about "handling the administration" using force. This confrontational environment led both the Central and to officially abstain from judicial work from , branding the strike a "" (collective leave).
A Web of Precedent: Why Strikes are Illegal The High Court Bench, led by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti, did not mince words. Relying on a long-standing line of rulings—including and —the Court reiterated that lawyers have absolutely no right to strike.
The Court held that the right to freedom of speech under cannot be invoked to paralyze the courts, and that the "speedy justice" guaranteed by of the remains a fundamental right of the citizenry. Abstaining from work is not merely a professional lapse; the bench categorically labeled such boycotts an act of .
Key Observations: The Court Speaks The bench highlighted the profound prejudice caused to , many of whom traveled from long distances only to find the court effectively closed. As observed by the Court:
"The citizenry of this great country has thus pledged and resolved to be governed by the . Unless and until administration of justice is secured by the smooth and effective running of courts the cannot be ensured."
Regarding the distribution of lathis and inflammatory content, the Court noted:
"Nobody has the right to go on strike or boycott courts... to go on strike/ boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression."
The Bench further chastised the disregard for the , noting that:
"Vested interests or a section of unscrupulous members at the Bar cannot be allowed to violate the law declared by the ."
The Verdict and Its Future Impact While the Court had the authority to initiate immediate proceedings against all involved, it exercised . Taking note that the had already expelled two of the most egregious offenders for five years, the Court chose to issue to the office-bearers and specific advocates.
These individuals must explain why contempt proceedings should not commence and why their cases should not be referred to the . They are also required to submit an pledging to adhere to directives and maintain professional decorum.
This ruling sends a chilling message to Bar Associations across the state: the era of paralyzing the judicial system to protest local grievances is over. By mandating the inclusion of the in , the Court has provided a new, peaceful framework for dispute resolution, leaving no excuse for the "menace of strikes."
The matter is set to be heard again on , marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to balance the rights of advocates with the fundamental right of every Indian to access a functioning court.
