Back
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
In Re : – Appellant
Versus
District Bar Association of Prayagraj – Respondent
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,
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....
Prohibition on advocate strikes, necessity for addressing genuine grievances within the justice delivery system, and directive for the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
