Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1395
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Rajeev Bharti, JJ.
Anuradha Singh and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and others - Respondents
Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No.4 of 2026
Decided On : 08-06-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Vijai Shankar Tripathi, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Kuldeep Verma, Umesh Singh
For the Respondent : G.A., Aniket Srivastav, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Jyotiresh Pandey, Mrs.suniti Sachan, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Shailendra Singh Chauhan
Important Points
Subject
Legal Ethics and Contempt of Court - Advocates Professional Conduct
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Professional Ethics and Conduct - Responsibility of Bar Councils - Duty to ensure discipline and prevent unprofessional behavior - Bar associations prohibited from calling for strikes, even for condolence purposes, which must be held only after working hours. (Paras 9, 11, 23)
Facts of the case:
Following reports of widespread strikes and abstention from work by various bar members, the court noted that such actions were severely hampering the judicial system. Evidence included reports and digital media showing lawyers organizing strikes, distributing equipment for intimidation against administration, and utilizing public platforms to provoke unrest, despite clear legal mandates from the apex court against such activities.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that strike actions were blatant violations of settled law. It declared the conduct of the bar members as unjustified and illegal, specifically noting that the right to freedom of speech under Article 19 does not justify boycotting courts to the detriment of the public's right to speedy justice under Articles 14 and 21. Action was taken to formalize a Grievance Redressal Committee structure involving administrative representation to resolve genuine grievances, thereby removing any justification for strikes.
Issues: Whether the strike/boycott of judicial work by bar associations is permissible under the law and how the judiciary should address such persistent defiance and the necessity of improved grievance mechanisms.
Ratio Decidendi: Any act of lawyers or their associations to go on strike or abstain from work is an ex facie act of criminal contempt. The right to speedy justice is a fundamental right that surpasses any perceived right to protest, and established institutional grievance mechanisms must replace the menace of strikes.
Result: Strike/boycott of judicial work declared illegal; show cause notices issued for criminal contempt; mechanisms for grievance redressal mandated for implementation.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijai Shankar Tripathi, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Kuldeep Verma, Umesh Singh
For the Respondents: G.A., Aniket Srivastav, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Jyotiresh Pandey, Suniti Sachan, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Shailendra Singh Chauhan
JUDGMENT :
1. This case was lastly listed on 25.05.2026 and the following order has been passed:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and office bearers of Central Bar Association, Lucknow, Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow as well as other respective counsels of this writ petition.
2. Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate and Pt. S. Chandra, President of Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow have appeared to assist the Court.
3. Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the Lucknow Nagar Nigam has produced a letter dated 23.05.2026, which has been preferred by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow addressed to the District Magistrate, Lucknow and Joint Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Lucknow apprising the fact that Lucknow Nagar Nigam took required action in compliance of the order of this Court and the hindrances and obstructions created by the Advocates on 17.05.2026, the same is taken on record.
4. As per the aforesaid instructions, on Chakbast Crossing near Swasthya Bhawan, out of total 72 marked illegal encroachments, only 14 encroachments have been removed but remaining encroachments could not be removed on account of the obstructions and hindrances created by the Advocates, who were present on the spot, therefore, for making compliance of the order of this Court, the required support from administration and police has been sought.
5. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, list/ put up this case on 8th June, 2026 for orders at 03:30 P.M. after obtaining appropriate order from Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute the Bench.
6. In the meantime, respective parties/ counsels for the respective parties may file applications/ affidavits in the Registry of this Court.”
2. D.R. (Confidential) has produced a report of the District Judge, Lucknow dated 23.05.2026 enclosing therewith the order of this Court dated 11.03.2026, letter of the District Judge dated 18.05.2026 apprising the Registrar General of this Court to the effect that the Central Bar Association, Lucknow and Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow have resolved to abstain from work from 18.05.2026 to 20.05.2026 naming the same abstinence of work as ‘Samuhik Avakash’ and the resolutions of respective Bar Associations have been enclosed. Photocopies of news item published in various newspapers have also been enclosed. D.R. (Confidential) has also provided one pen-drive alongwith the report of the District Judge, which contains some videos of the meetings of the Members of the aforesaid Bar Associations and one video wherein one Advocate is distributing plastic Lathies to the Advocates. The aforesaid confidential report along with pen-drive is taken on record.
3. The District Judge has also provided the same report, which has been provided by the D.R. (Confidential) of this Court, alongwith one pen-drive showing some photographs of Advocates’ strike and some videos of the meetings of the Members of the aforesaid Bar Associations, Lucknow as well as one video wherein one Advocate is distributing plastic Lathies, which are commonly used by the police personnel/ PAC personnel, to the Advocates, which is also taken on record.
4. It would be pertinent to indicate the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by this Court in Contempt Application (Criminal) No.12 of 2024 is being reproduced hereunder:-
“1. 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 vs. Un
