Very important point
Lawyers have no right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of Courts. If a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, absents from attending Court due to strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be in addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him.

Headnote:Advocates Act, 1961—Sections 7, 30, 34(1), 38 and 48A—Constitution of India — Article 145 — Petitions —Whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of the Courts? (No)—Role of lawyers in the administration of justice and their duties and obligations as officers of Court (see paras 4 to 16)—Directions can be issued to the lawyers to call off a strike — (See paras 17 and 18)—Reasons set out in the affidavits of Bar Council of India do not justify a strike or call for boycott (see paras 32 to 33)—Right of appearance in courts is within the control of courts—(Para 34)—Conclusion —Lawyers have no right to strike or call for boycott of Courts, if done, will be liable to pay costs and damages.
       Held Per Variava, J. (for himself, CJI, Doraiswamy Raju and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.) :
       Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every Advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that Courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of Courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Associations expressing want of confidence in judicial officers it would amount to scandalising the Courts to undermine its authority and thereby the Advocates will have committed contempt of Court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh’s case (supra) that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex-facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer’s duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of Court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Roman Services’ case, that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call. It must also be remembered that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court. They owe a duty to their client. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt Court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. (Paras 20 and 21)
       In our view it is the duty of Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct. This being their duty no Bar Council can even consider giving a call for strike or a call for boycott. It follows that the Bar Councils and even Bar Associations can never consider or take seriously any requisition calling for a meeting to consider a call for a strike or a call for boycott. Such requisitions should be consigned to the place where they belong viz. the waste paper basket. In case any Association calls for a strike or a call for boycott the concerned State Bar Council and on their failure the Bar Council of India must immediately take disciplinary action against the Advocates who give a call for strike and if the Committee Members permit calling of a meeting for such purpose against the Committee Members. Further it is the duty of every Advocate to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott. It must also be noted that Courts are not powerless or helpless. Section 38 of the Advocates Act provides that even in disciplinary matters the final Appellate Authority is the Supreme Court. Thus even if the Bar Councils do not rise to the occasion and perform their duties by taking disciplinary action on a complaint from a client against an advocate for non-appearance by reason of a call for strike or boycott, on an Appeal the Supreme Court can and will. Apart from this, as set out in Roman Services’ case, every Court now should and must mulct Advocates who hold Vakalats but still refrain from attending Courts in pursuance of a strike call with costs. Such costs would be in addition to the damages which the Advocate may have to pay for the loss suffered by his client by reason of his non-appearance. (Paras 25 and 26)
       The only exception to the general rule set out above appears to be item (III). We accept that in such cases a strong protest must be lodged. We remain of the view that strikes are illegal and that Courts must now take a very serious view of strikes and calls for boycott. However, as stated above, lawyers are part and parcel of the system of administration of justice. A protest on an issue involving dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and judiciary, provided it does not exceed one day, may be overlooked by Courts, who may turn a blind eye for that one day. One last thing which must be mentioned is that the right of appearance in Courts is still within the control and jurisdiction of Courts. (Paras 33 and 34)
       Held finally : In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot not attend Courts in pursuance to a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocate decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him. It is now hoped that with the above clarifications, there will be no strikes and/or calls for boycott. It is hoped that better sense will prevail and self restraint will be exercised. The Petitions stand disposed off accordingly. (Paras 35 and 36)
       Held Per Shah, J. (for himself and D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.) (concurring with Variava, J.) :
       However, by merely holding strikes as illegal, it would not be sufficient in present-day situation nor serve any purpose. The root cause for such malady is required to be cured. It is stated that resort to strike is because the administration is having deaf ears in listening to the genuine grievances and even if grievances are heard appropriate actions are not taken. To highlight, therefore, the cause call for strike is given. In our view whatever be the situation in other fields lawyers cannot claim or justify to go on strike or give a call to boycott the judicial proceedings. It is rightly pointed out by Attorney General that by the very nature of their calling to aid and assist in the dispensation of justice, lawyers normally should not resort to strike. Further, it had been repeatedly held that strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. (Para 41)
       Therefore, some concrete joint action is required to be taken by the Bench and the Bar to see that there are no strikes any more. For this purpose, in our view, the suggestion made by the Bar Council of India in its resolution dated 29th September, 2002, requires to be seriously considered and implemented by each Bar Association. (Para 43 & 44)
       Hence, it is directed that (a) all the Bar Associations in the country shall implement the resolution dated 29th September, 2002 passed by the Bar Council of India, and (b) under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, the High Courts would frame necessary rules so that appropriate action can be taken against defaulting advocate/advocates. (Para 47)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the legality of lawyers' right to strike and their obligations are as follows:

Lawyers do not have a legal right to go on strike or to call for a boycott of courts. Such actions are considered illegal and unprofessional (!) (!) .
Lawyers who abstain from court proceedings due to strike calls, despite holding Vakalats, are personally liable to pay costs and damages to their clients for the loss suffered (!) (!) .
The duty of an advocate who has accepted a brief is to attend court and participate in the proceedings. Refusal to do so, especially on account of a strike or boycott, constitutes professional misconduct and contempt of court (!) (!) .
Courts are obligated to proceed with judicial business irrespective of lawyers' strikes. They are not required to adjourn cases and should not be privy to strikes or boycotts (!) (!) .
Any attempt by lawyers to obstruct or prevent colleagues from discharging their professional duties, including attending court, is a criminal offense and can lead to contempt proceedings (!) (!) .
The role of Bar Councils and Bar Associations is to uphold professional standards and ensure discipline. They are not authorized to call or endorse strikes or boycotts; such calls should be ignored and may result in disciplinary action (!) (!) .
The dignity, independence, and integrity of the Bar and judiciary are paramount. In exceptional cases involving threats to these principles, protests may be tolerated for a limited duration, but even then, the courts may turn a blind eye to such protests for a day (!) (!) .
The right of appearance in courts is subject to the control and supervision of the courts themselves. Rules can be framed to regulate conduct and prevent unprofessional or unbecoming behavior, including strikes, which interfere with justice (!) (!) .
The courts have the authority, including under statutory provisions, to frame rules that regulate advocates' practice and to take disciplinary action against advocates who participate in illegal strikes or boycotts (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework emphasizes that lawyers must exercise self-restraint, uphold their professional duties, and avoid actions that disrupt the administration of justice. Alternative methods of protest, such as peaceful demonstrations and representations, are encouraged over strikes or boycotts (!) (!) .

These points collectively reinforce that the legal profession's obligations to uphold justice and the dignity of the courts outweigh any perceived right to strike, and that the courts and regulatory bodies have the authority to enforce discipline and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Judgment

S.N. Variava, J.—All these Petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycotts of Courts. In all these Petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us.

2. In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, an interim order came to be passed. This Order is reported in (1995) 1 Scale p.6. The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the Order. The relevant portion reads as under:-

“2. The Officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C. R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a ‘National Conference’ of members of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils was held on 10th and 11th September, 1994 and a working paper was circulated on behalf of the Bar Council of India by Mr. V. C. Misra, Chairman, Bar Council of India, inter alia on the question of strike by lawyers. In that working paper a note was taken that Bar Association had proceeded on strike on several occasions in the past, at times, State-wide or Nationwide, and ‘while the profession does not like it as members of the profession are themselves the losers in the process’ and while it is not necessary to sit in judgment over the wider question whether members of the profession can at all go on strike or boycott of courts, it was felt that even if it is assumed that such a right enures to the members of the profession, the circumstances in which such a steps should be restored should be clearly indicated. Referring to an earlier case before the Delhi High Court it was stated that the Bar Council of India had made its position clear to the effect: “(a) Bar Council of India is against resorting to strike excepting in rarest of rare cases involving the dignity and independence of the judiciary as well as of the Bar; and (b) whenever strikes becomes inevitable, efforts shall be made to keep it short and peaceful to avoid causing hardship to the litigant public.” (emphasis supplied). It was in response to the above that a consensus emerged at the Bar at the hearing of the matter that instead of the Court going into the wider question whether or not the members of the legal profession can resort to strike or abstain from appearing in cases in Court in which they are engaged, the Court may see the working of the interim arrangement and if that is found to be satisfactory it may perhaps not be required to go into the wider question at this stage. Pursuant to the discussion that took place at the last hearing on 30" November, 1994, the following suggestions have emerged as an interim measure consistent with the Bar Council of India’s thinking that except in the rarest of rare cases strike should not be resorted to and instead peaceful demonstration may be resorted to avoid causing hardship to the litigant public. The learned counsel suggested that to begin with the following interim measures may be sufficient for the present:-

“(1) In the rare instance where any association of lawyers including statutory Bar Councils considers it imperative to call upon and/or advise members of the legal profession to abstain from appearing in courts on any occasion, it must be left open to any individual member/members of that association to be free to appear without let, fear or hindrance or any other coercive steps.

(2) No such member who appears in court or otherwise practices, his legal profession, shall be visited with any adverse or penal consequences whatever, by any association of lawyers, and shall not suffer any expulsion or threat of expulsion therefrom.

(3) The above will not preclude other forms of protest by pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1249

Cases Referred (8)