Lawyers' strikes violate litigants' right to justice; conditions for bail must not impede the right to personal liberty.

ORDER :

1. On a resolution passed by three different Bar Associations of this Court two at Principal Seat at Jodhpur and one at Jaipur Bench, all the lawyers have decided to abstain from work and remain on strike as a mark of protest against the decision taken by the Full Court for declaring two working Saturdays in every month.

2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Another, 2003 (2) SCC 45 has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike; or give a call for boycott; or not even a token strike. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further expressed that lawyers abstaining from work held litigants at ransom. The functioning and working of the Court cannot be allowed to stop particularly for the matters involving personal liberty of the persons languished in the Jails.

3. Three Bar Associations of Lawyers have expressed their opposition for designating two regular working Saturdays in every month. Some representations have been reportedly submitted by these Bar Associations for redressal of their grievances. A Committee has already been constituted vide order dated 06.01.2026 to look into the matter and submit its report for taking appropriate decision. The decision is still awaited.

4. Going on strike and remaining absent from Court work is not a solution. All problems have solution and can be settled by debates and dialogues. Every challenge has a solution. Debates and dialogues can lead to a better understanding and also necessary for achieving any solutions.

5. A clear and specific note has been published in the cause-list dated 23.01.2026, which reads as under:-

“It is notified to all concerned that as per directions, all the working Saturdays, the Benches shall preferably take up old pending cases on voluntary basis as per request. Presence of counsels on aforesaid Saturdays shall not be mandatory.”

6. Inspite of above, a call of strike/remaining absent from work by the lawyers is not warranted.

7. When lawyers boycott the Courts, it directly violates the rights of the litigants to speedy justice, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even an amendment has also been proposed in the Advocates’ Amendment Bill, 2025, which prohibits lawyers from boycotting or abstaining from Court’s work. In a democratic setup, right to dissent, express opinions and protest against the decisions is a fundamental right, often derived from freedom of speech, expression and peaceful assembly. However, this right is not absolute and is generally expected to be exercised peacefully without causing public disorder or hampering the cause of justice. The protest must be made in a peaceful, non-violent and unarmed manner, as it has been defined under Article 19(1) (b) of the Constitution of India.

8. The right to protest must be balanced with the rights of other citizens such as right to life and personal liberty.

9. In the instant case, the personal life and liberty of the applicant is at stake, as he is languishing in Jail inspite of his release order, passed by this Court on 07.10.2025.

10. The instant application has been submitted by the accused- applicant, who has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and sentence of 10 years has been awarded to him out of which he has already served 7 years and 11 months.

11. Considering the overall these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025 suspended the sentence of the applicant subject to the following conditions mentioned in Para 6, which reads as under:-

“6