Lawyers have a duty to attend trial, and strikes interfere with the administration of justice. Courts are obligated to hear and decide cases, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycotting the Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

2. The applicants before this Court had approached the Writ Court through Writ-C No.18129 of 2021, wherein on 09.08.2021 the opposite party was required to decide the proceedings of the Suit, within a period of three months.

3. The order-sheet which has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to the application demonstrates the fact that not even on single occasion from 11.08.2021 to 17.05.2022, the Tehsil Court has functioned. On all the occasions, the judicial work had suffered on the count that the lawyers are abstaining from judicial work.

4. This Court takes note of the fact that on one hand, the writ petitions are filed seeking the direction for early disposal of the revenue proceedings which are pending for a quite long time before the Revenue Court, while lawyers practising at Tehsil level in various districts of the State are mostly on strike. When the order of the writ Court is not adhered by the Officers of the Revenue Department, who are performing the judicial work, the contempt proceedings are initiated against them.

5. I find that this Court cannot proceed to punish the Officers under the contempt jurisdiction as it is the lawyers who are at fault and are not permitting the judicial work to be carried out at various Tehsils of the State.

6. The 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 atte