Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, and they have a duty to attend court proceedings. Courts have the power to frame rules debarring advocates guilty of contempt or unprofessional conduct from appearing before the courts.

1. The two Contempt Petitions and the I.A. can be disposed of by this common Order. All of them deal with the question whether the action of the Bar Associations, i.e., the Delhi High Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association, in visiting the Advocates, who refused to participate in the strike call, with punitive action of suspension and the action of the Bar Council of Delhi passing a resolution which inter alia proposes to take against lawyers who did not participate in the strike call, amounts to contempt of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause ‘A’ Registered Society v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 1 Scale 6.

2. The concerned events in these matters took place during 1999 and 2000 and since then there has been no repetition of the acts of the type alleged. Thus, apart from reiterating the well-settled legal position, we do not propose to take any further action.

3. The question of lawyers’ going on strike has been a subject matter in a number of decisions of this Court. All of them have been considered in the Judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, reported in =(2003) 2 SCC 45. In this case, the Court also noted the directions, which were issued by this Court in the case of Common Cause ‘A’ Registered Society (supra). The said directions are to the following effect:

“(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 practising lawyers in Court such as, for instance, wearing of armbands and other forms of protest which in no way interrupt or disrupt the Court proceedings or adversely affect the interest of the litigant. Any such form of protest shall not however be derogatory to the Court or to the profession.

(4) ffice-bearers of a Bar Association (including Bar Council) responsible for taking decisions mentioned in Clause (1) above shall ensure that such decisions are implemented in the spirit of what is stated in Clauses (1), (2) and (3) above.”

Even though these directions were passed as an interim measure they were made an Order of the Court. In this case, it was hoped that the Bar Council of India would incorporate the above Clauses in the Bar Council of India (Conduct and Disciplinary) Rules. Unfortunately, even after all these years, the Bar Council of India has not deemed it fit to incorporate those directions into its Rules. However, Mr. Krishnamani made a statement, on behalf of the Bar Council of India, that a meeting has been called by the Bar Council of India on 18th October, 2005 in order to consider what is to be done with regard to Lawyers’ strike. It is hoped that now at least better sense will prevail and the Bar Council of India incorporates the above Clauses in the Bar Council of India (Conduct and Disciplinary) Rules.

4. The Constitution Bench has, in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal’s case (supra), culled out the law in the following terms:

“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 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