Indian High Courts Confront Systemic Challenges: Lawyer Strikes, Judicial Intimidation, and Investigative Lapses

In a series of recent, hard-hitting orders, High Courts across India have addressed critical systemic issues threatening the core of the nation's justice delivery mechanism. From the Allahabad High Court's stern crackdown on the "culture of strikes" by lawyers to the Calcutta High Court's intervention in a flawed criminal investigation and a judge's lament on the rising trend of vilifying the judiciary, these developments paint a picture of a legal system actively grappling with internal and external pressures that impede its functioning and erode public trust.

---

Allahabad High Court Declares War on "Culture of Strikes"

In a significant move poised to have far-reaching implications for Bar Associations nationwide, the Allahabad High Court has taken a strong stand against the pervasive practice of lawyer strikes, warning that such actions amount to professional misconduct and contempt of court. The Court’s sharp rebuke came while hearing a writ petition filed by Mohd. Najim Khan, a litigant whose appeal under the UP Revenue Code had been languishing for years.

The facts presented to the court were stark: out of 102 scheduled hearings in Khan’s case before the SDM at Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya, an astonishing 68 were adjourned due to strikes and boycotts called by the local Bar Association. The situation had escalated to the point where the last 21 consecutive hearings since May 2025 were systematically disrupted by boycotts.

Observing this "sorry state of affairs," Justice Mathur highlighted the immense hardship caused to ordinary litigants, particularly those of limited means, who find their pursuit of justice indefinitely stalled. The Court remarked that revenue proceedings, which form the bedrock of rural dispute resolution, were coming to a standstill due to these repeated disruptions.

Upholding Supreme Court Precedent

The High Court minced no words, emphasizing that the actions of the Rudauli Bar Association were in direct contravention of binding Supreme Court precedents that have consistently held that lawyers have no right to strike. The bench cited a trilogy of landmark rulings that have definitively settled the law on this issue:

1. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2002) : The foundational judgment where the Supreme Court unequivocally declared that lawyers do not have the right to go on strike or call for a boycott.
2. Hussain v. Union of India (2017) : This case reiterated the principles laid down in Harish Uppal , linking the disruption of court work to the violation of litigants' fundamental right to speedy trial.
3. District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya (2020) : The Court quoted this recent judgment to underscore the binding nature of the prohibition, stating, “Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike… No Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott.”

Moving beyond mere observation, the Allahabad High Court initiated decisive action. It ordered the impleadment of the President and General Secretary of the Rudauli Bar Association as respondents in the matter. Notices have been issued directing them to appear personally before the Court on September 2, 2025, and submit affidavits explaining the repeated boycott calls. Crucially, the court has put them on notice to show cause why action—including for contempt of court—should not be taken against them for their professional misconduct.

This order serves as a powerful signal to Bar Associations across the country that the judiciary is losing patience with the use of strikes as a form of protest, viewing it as a direct impediment to the administration of justice.

---

Judicial Independence Under Threat: Concerns Over Personal Attacks on Judges

In a parallel development reflecting on the decorum of the legal profession, a recent ruling voiced grave concerns over an emerging trend of personal attacks on judges by disgruntled litigants and lawyers. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that the vilification of judges is a tactic used to derail the course of justice.

“A trend of vilifying Judges has emerged in recent times. Disgruntled lawyers and litigants often demand release, recusal and transfer of matters on the pretext of oblique motives attributed to the Judge," the Court stated.

This powerful statement highlights how such reckless allegations create an environment of intimidation, which is antithetical to the principles of impartial decision-making. The Court warned that these personal attacks breach the "safety net" that allows for an independent judiciary. The long-term consequence, as the judgment notes, is the creation of "sceptical and unsure Judges," a development that would be disastrous for the rule of law. This observation resonates with the Allahabad High Court's stance on professional ethics, suggesting a broader judicial concern with the deteriorating standards of conduct within the legal ecosystem.

---

Calcutta High Court Intervenes to Correct Investigative Failures

Meanwhile, the Calcutta High Court demonstrated its role as a sentinel of justice in a harrowing case involving a suspicious death. In the matter of Isha Sekh VS Superintendent of Police, Jangipur Police District & Ors. , Justice Tirthankar Ghosh ordered the exhumation and second post-mortem of Fatema Khatun, a young woman who died in her matrimonial home under a cloud of dowry harassment allegations.

The petitioner, the victim's father, alleged that his daughter was found hanging but that he had witnessed signs of trauma on her body, which were conspicuously absent from the official inquest and the initial post-mortem report. The report bafflingly recorded “no external injuries.” Presented with photographs taken at the time the body was discovered, the Court noted serious inconsistencies.

Justice Ghosh observed: "...in the post-mortem report the Autopsy Surgeon categorically recorded ‘no external injuries’ and there were no reflection of any blunt trauma, I am of the view that a second post-mortem is called for in the circumstances of the present case.”

This decisive intervention, made even after a charge sheet had been filed, underscores the judiciary's power and duty to scrutinize the investigative process. The Court's order for a second autopsy, to be conducted at AIIMS, Kalyani, and supervised by the A.C.J.M., Jangipur, is a critical step towards unearthing the truth and ensuring a fair investigation. This case serves as a stark reminder of the judiciary's vital oversight function in the criminal justice system, especially in sensitive cases where there are allegations of procedural and forensic lapses.

Conclusion: A Judiciary Reasserting Its Authority

Taken together, these judicial pronouncements from different corners of the country reveal a judiciary that is increasingly assertive in addressing the ailments that plague the justice system. Whether it is holding lawyers accountable for disrupting court proceedings, defending the institution from baseless attacks, or stepping in to correct the course of a flawed investigation, the High Courts are sending a clear message: the sanctity of the judicial process and the litigant's right to timely and fair justice are paramount and non-negotiable. For legal professionals, these developments are a call to introspection on their duties as officers of the court and their role in upholding the integrity of the institution they serve.