Back
M. R. SHAH, A. S. BOPANNA
District Bar Association Dehradun – Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Shandilya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. strikes by lawyers are considered contemptuous. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. lawyers have no right to strike or boycott court. (Para 2) |
| 3. repeated strikes disrupt access to justice. (Para 3) |
| 4. court has the authority over conduct of advocates. (Para 4) |
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 pursuan
Lawyers have a duty to ensure the smooth functioning of the court and cannot disrupt court proceedings. Strikes interfere with the administration of justice and are against the duty of lawyers as off....
Lawyers have no right to strike, as established by the Supreme Court, and any such action will be treated as criminal contempt.
Lawyers have a duty to attend trial, and strikes interfere with the administration of justice. Courts are obligated to hear and decide cases, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of courts to ensure expeditious trials and take action against striking lawyers for professional misconduct and contempt of court, highlig....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council's call for strike was illegal, unconstitutional, and against statutory provisions. It also emphasized that lawyers have ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council has no authority to compel lawyers to abstain from work, and such actions are illegal, unconstitutional, and against sta....
Lawyers cannot engage in strikes or boycotts, as such actions are illegal and undermine the justice system.
Lawyers' strikes violate litigants' right to justice; conditions for bail must not impede the right to personal liberty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
