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 officers of the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The applicant before this Court had approached the Writ Court through Writ-C No.31994 of 2021, wherein on 04.12.2021 the opposite party was required to decide the restoration application filed in Case No.4636 of 2018 bearing Computerized Case No.T201814360304636 under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of three months.

3. The order-sheet of the proceedings has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of contempt application, which reveals that lawyers practising in Tehsil Machhalishar, District Jaunpur are constantly on strike from 18.10.2021 to 11.07.2022. As such, the officers could not proceed with the matter and decide the proceedings due to constant call of strike given by the members of Bar at Tehsil Machhalishar District Jaunpur.

4. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45 held that the constant strike by the lawyers is hampering the judicial work and the lawyers being the officers of the Court cannot go on token strike. Relevant paragraphs no.20, 21, 22 and 23 are extracted as under:-

"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 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 it 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 Association expressing want of confidence in judicial officers it would amount to scandalizing the Courts to undermine its authority and there by the Advocates will have committed contempt of Court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh's case (supra) 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 Court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Roman Services case, that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call.

21. It must also be remembered that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court. They owe a duty to their client. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt Court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. In the words of Mr. H.M. Seervai, a distinguished jurist:-

"Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts. "In my submission", he said th