Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Suo-motu-with Regard To Filling Up All – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Vidyarthi, J. - Pursuant to the order dated 31.03.2022, learned members of the Bar Council of U.P., namely, Sri Janki Sharan Pandey, Sri Jai Narayan Pandey, Sri Akhilesh Awasthi, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Sri Prashant Singh 'Atal' and Sri Paresh Mishra are present.
2. The issue which is engaging attention of the Court in this public interest litigation, especially the issue regarding uncalled for strike calls being given by the Bar Associations, has been deliberated. Learned members of the Bar Counsel of U.P. present have assured the Court to take appropriate measures to ensure that frequency of the strike calls, boycott calls and resolutions regarding abstinence from active work in the court is arrested.
3. Certain individual members have also made suggestions regarding steps which may be legally permissible to be taken at the end of Bar Council so that respective Bar Associations do not indulge in such frequent strike calls.
4. Some concern has been expressed by learned members of Bar Council about non-availability of the Presiding Officers in the courts, especially the revenue courts. Learned members have also stated that it has been noticed and observed that the Presid
The court's trust in the Bar Council's commitment to address the issue of strike calls and the direction to the State to provide up-to-date information on the availability of judicial officers.
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....
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....
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's call for strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott....
The main legal point established is that the State Bar Council has no authority to compel lawyers to abstain from work, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott.
Lawyers have no right to strike, as established by the Supreme Court, and any such action will be treated as criminal contempt.
The call to abstain from court work by the Bar Council violates statutory rights and Supreme Court directives.
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
