IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chowdhary, JJ.
In Re : - Applicant
Versus
District Bar Association of Prayagraj - Respondent
Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 12 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
JUDGMENT :
Cognizance in this contempt case was taken on a report received from District Judge, Prayagraj, indicating that between July 2023 to April, 2024 the lawyers in District Court, Prayagraj abstained from work/resorted to strike on 127 days out of total working of 218 days. The Court functioned only for 41.74% days while strike was resorted to on 58.26% days. Notices were issued to the office bearers of Bar Association and other advocates responsible in the matter.
2. This Court took note of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, wherein the Constitution Bench of the Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or even give a call for strike. Even prior to the judgment in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal (supra) the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, held that going on strike by lawyers is not only contempt of Court but also amounts to professional misconduct. This position in law has been consistently reiterated in a series of judgments of the Supreme Court, including the judgments in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 295, Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27, District Bar Association Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar, (2020) 17 SCC 672 and In Re: Assault on Two Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association at District Court Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar, (2024) SCC Online SC 1016. As the issue raised had a far reaching impact on administration of justice we requested the highest advocates body at the national and state level to assist the Court in evolving mechanism to handle the menace of strike by the advocates. In the order of the Court passed on 31.5.2024 this Court observed as under :
3. The matter was adjourned on 8.7.2024 and again on 16.7.2024. After hearing learned counsels appearing for the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as also the learned counsels appearing for the District Bar Association, Prayagraj and High Court Bar Association we issued following directions on 16.7.2024 :
2. The Court is informed that the Chairman of Bar Council of India has held a meeting with the respective stakeholders and a fresh meeting on the aspect relating to holding of strike in the different district Courts of Uttar Pradesh is proposed to be held within next two weeks.
3. Shri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel representing the Bar Council of India informs that the Bar Council of India is committed to maintenance of peaceful working without any uncalled for strike by the lawyers and that appropriate modalities in that regard would be finalized soon. A statement is made that the Chairman, Bar Council of India will remain personally present on the next occasion to assist the Court for ensuring that strikes are not allowed in district Courts.
4. The statement made on behalf of Bar Council of India has been adopted by the counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council as also by Shri R.K. OJha, Senior Advocate, who represents the District Bar Association, Prayagraj.
5. We hope and trust that by the next date of listing
Common Cause v. Union of India
District Bar Association Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar
Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India
Lawyers have no right to strike, as established by the Supreme Court, and any such action will be treated as criminal contempt.
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 off....
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, highlig....
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council's call for strike was illegal, unconstitutional, and against statutory provisions. It also emphasized that lawyers have ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council has no authority to compel lawyers to abstain from work, and such actions are illegal, unconstitutional, and against sta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council's call for strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.