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, highlighting the right to speedy trial and fair administration of justice.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:

2. Heard Shri Kumar Parikshit, learned counsel assisted by Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I.

(I) Facts

3. Affidavit filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 15.02.2023 is taken in the record.

4. This is the third bail application. While rejecting the first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23828 of 2018 on 27.06.2018, this Court issued the following directions:

“It is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and made necessary endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the production of certified copy of this order. Provided the applicant would render fullest co-operation in early conclusion of trial.

Office is directed to transmit the copy of this order to concern Court within month from the production of certified copy of this order for the necessary compliance.”

While rejecting the second bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27291 of 2019 on 02.09.2020 the learned trial court was directed to give priority to the matter. The trial has not concluded and is dragging on despite directions of this Court. The applicant was in jail since 23.12.2017.

5. The status report sent by the learned trial court states that the lawyers repeatedly struck work. The striking lawyers prevented the examination of witnesses who had appeared before the learned trial court on the dates fixed. Non-examination of the said witnesses on various dates derailed the court process and delayed the trial. Consequently the order of this Court was not complied with.

6. Similarly the trial courts in the other connected bail applications and also in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9077 of 2023 (Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs. State of U.P.) have also sent status reports which record that the trials have been delayed since the witnesses could not be examined as the lawyers had struck work on a regular basis. Consequently the orders of this Court to conclude the trials in expeditious time frame also could not be complied with.

(II) Submissions of counsels:

7. Shri Kumar Parikshit, learned counsel assisted by Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel, Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel and Shri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsels for the applicants made the following submissions on the common issue arising in the connected bail applications:

(I) The report sent by the learned trial courts respectively disclose that the delays in the trials are occasioned by repeated strikes by lawyers. The striking lawyers have declined to examine or prevented the examination of witnesses.

(II) The applicants have been cooperating in the trial proceedings.

(III) As a result of the strikes by lawyers the applicants are suffering prolonged incarceration and their right to speedy trial too has been violated.

(IV) The Constitutional Courts have consistently held that strikes are illegal and have also outlined the duties and obligations of counsels towards their clients.

8. Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh does not dispute the fact that Constitutional Courts have held that lawyers strikes are illegal. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has taken a stand which is consistent with the holdings of the Constitutional Courts.

9. Learned counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar