ORDER :

1. It is brought to our notice that the Bar Association of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur went on one day strike on 27.09.2021. To go on strike by the Bar Association and the lawyers is absolutely contemptuous and just contrary to the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India , (2003) 2 SCC 45; Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India , (2006) 9 SCC 295; Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2018) 17 SCC 27 and District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary vs. Ishwar Shandilya and Others , 2020 SCC Online SC 244.

2. In the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra), this Court has specifically observed and held that the lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or to give a call for strike. It is also further observed that nor can they while holding Vakalat on behalf of clients, abstain from appearing in courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. It is further observed by this Court that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer to refuse to attend the court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is further observed that an Advocate is an officer of the court and enjoys a special status in the society; Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure the smooth functioning of the court; they owe a duty to their clients and strikes interfere with the administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy.

3. Despite the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and even the concern expressed by this Court against the strikes by the lawyers, things did not improve and again the issue of lawyers going on strikes came to be considered in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society (supra) and this Court in paragraph 4 of that judgment, held as under:

“4. The Constitution Bench has, in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal Case (2003) 2 SCC 45 culled out the law in the following terms: (SCC pp. 64 & 71-74, Paras 20-21 & 34-36)

“20. 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 them 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 Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 37] 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 courts. Lawyers have also known, at least since Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v Subhash Kapoor , (2001) 1 SCC 118 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 3 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 152, that the advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered