Back
Hopes for Amicable Resolution Amid Lawyers' Strike Against LADC Scheme
In a measured response to a highlighting the paralysis of , the has expressed firm hope that the ongoing lawyers' strike against the will be resolved amicably within the Bar itself, without necessitating .
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor made these observations after the President of the Bar Association, members of the , and several senior advocates appeared before the Court upon its request. The matter has been adjourned to .
The Genesis of the Dispute
The controversy traces its roots to the introducing the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) System — an institutional mechanism designed to provide legal representation to individuals entitled to free legal aid. The scheme sought to replace the earlier , under which practicing advocates were empanelled to represent legal aid beneficiaries.
However, the rollout of the LADC Scheme in Punjab triggered strong opposition from several . Lawyers contended that the new framework adversely affected the professional opportunities previously available to advocates under the panel counsel model. In protest, multiple bar associations passed resolutions and called for an , effectively bringing judicial proceedings in to a grinding halt.
A PIL Focused on , Not the Merits of LADC
The PIL was filed by , a practicing lawyer before the High Court, who appeared in person. Crucially, Seth clarified at the outset that his petition did not seek adjudication on the merits of the dispute surrounding the LADC Scheme. Instead, the petition advanced a more fundamental constitutional argument: irrespective of the validity of the lawyers' demands, court functioning cannot be permitted to remain paralysed , as is a guaranteed right under .
Relying on settled legal precedent that advocates possess neither a legal nor a fundamental right to strike or boycott courts , the petitioner argued that unimpeded access to courts forms an essential pillar of the . He sought directions to ensure the smooth functioning of all district courts in Punjab and to prevent any obstruction to judicial work.
Appearing in person before the Bench, Seth submitted:
"Protest by legitimate means is well recognized for highlighting issues of importance, but while doing so it is not open for anyone to interfere with the or to deny access of justice to the litigants."
Court's Observations: A Gentle Nudge, Not a Heavy Hand
Rather than issuing immediate directives, the Division Bench adopted a calibrated approach, inviting the leadership of the Bar to address the impasse internally. The Court recorded in its order:
"On our request, the President of the Bar Association , as well as some of the members of the and learned Senior Counsels, have appeared before the Court. They are of the view that such issues ought to be resolved amicably at the level of the Bar itself."
The Bench further articulated its confidence in the Bar's capacity for , delivering the now-significant observation:
"We hope and trust that wiser heads will prevail and this Court would not be called upon to deal with the issue raised in the present matter, on judicial side."
This remark encapsulates the Court's preference for institutional maturity over judicial fiat — a recognition that professional bodies must themselves safeguard the they are sworn to uphold.
What Lies Ahead
The matter now stands adjourned to , on the joint request of the parties. The intervening period effectively serves as a window for the Bar leadership to broker a resolution with the protesting and address their concerns regarding the LADC Scheme.
Should the strike persist without meaningful dialogue, the High Court may find itself compelled to intervene on the judicial side — a prospect the Bench has made clear it wishes to avoid. For the thousands of litigants whose cases remain stalled in , the hope expressed by the High Court carries the weight of constitutional urgency.
