ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.9 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)...... Diary No(s).1476/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-09-2019

in WPPIL No.31/2016 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At

Nainital)

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION DEHRADUN Petitioner(s)

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

VERSUS

ISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS. Respondent(s)

([HEARD BY : HON. ARUN MISHRA AND HON. M.R. SHAH, JJ.] )

Date : 28-02-2020 This petition was called on for pronouncement of

judgment.

For Petitioner(s)

Ajai Kumar Bhatia, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah pronounced the judgment of the

Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Jusice Arun Mishra and His Lordship.

Delay condoned.

The special leave petition is dismissed in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

In paragraph 7 of the reportable judgment, following has been

observed by the Court:

As observed hereinabove, in spite of the decisions of this

Court in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal (supra), Common Cause,

A Registered Society (supra) and Krishnakant Namrakar (supra) and

despite the warnings by the courts time and again, still, in some

of the courts, the lawyers go on strikes/are on strikes. It

appears that despite the strong words used by this Court in the

1

Digitally signed by

ARJUN BISHT

Date: 2020.02.28

17:12:53 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

aforesaid decisions, criticizing the conduct on the part of the

lawyers to go on strikes, it appears that the message has not

reached. Even despite the resolution of the Bar Council of India

dated 29.09.2002, thereafter, no further concrete steps are taken

even by the Bar Council of India and/or other Bar Councils of the

States. A day has now come for the Bar Council of India and the

Bar Councils of the States to step in and to take concrete steps.

It is the duty of the Bar Councils to ensure that there is no

unprofessional and unbecoming conduct by any lawyer. As observed

by this Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra), the Bar

Council of India is enjoined with a duty of laying down the

standards of professional conduct and etiquette for Advocates. It

is further observed that this would mean that the Bar Council of

India ensures that advocates do not behave in an unprofessional and

unbecoming manner. Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right

to the Bar Council of India to give directions to the State Bar

Councils. It is further observed that the Bar Associations may be

separate bodies but all advocates who are members of such

associations are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar

Councils and thus the Bar Councils can always control their

conduct. Therefore, taking a serious note of the fact that

despite the aforesaid decisions of this Court, still the

lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes, we take suo moto cognizance

and issue notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar

Councils to suggest the further course of action and to give

concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/abstaining

the work by the lawyers. The Notices may be made returnable within

2

six weeks from today. The Registry is directed to issue the notices

to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils

accordingly.

(ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR)

COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

3