The Allahabad High Court held that adjourning cases due to a lawyers’ strike amounts to judicial misconduct and violates established Supreme Court directives. The Court was dealing with a matter where the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koil, Aligarh, deferred proceedings on account of lawyers abstaining from work. The Court strongly observed that yielding to such strike calls cannot be justified under law and may attract disciplinary action.
A restoration application was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koil, Aligarh, after the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, declined to entertain an appeal and advised the petitioner to seek restoration before the SDM. On the scheduled hearing date, however, no lawyer appeared as members of the local Bar Association were abstaining from court work, resulting in the adjournment of the case to a later date.
In response to the High Court’s previous direction, the SDM submitted a personal affidavit explaining that due to the strike call given by the Bar Association, no advocates were present to argue the matter, and the next hearing date was accordingly fixed.
The Court took serious note of the adjournment, emphasizing that abstention from professional duty by advocates on the call of a Bar Association is illegal and has been consistently held to be so by the Supreme Court. The Court referred to multiple judgments, including Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, Common Cause v. Union of India, and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P., reinforcing that court work must not be disrupted by such unlawful strikes.
The High Court categorically held, “If no one appeared to press the restoration application and there was a resolution by the Bar, the Court could not have sided with the resolution and fallen foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.”
The Court further remarked that accepting such resolutions amounts to misconduct by the presiding officer and could lead to disciplinary proceedings. It added that office bearers of the Bar Associations involved in calling such strikes may also be liable for removal from their positions.
The Court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to show cause through a personal affidavit as to why action should not be taken against her for adjourning the matter in violation of judicial norms. It also directed the officer to furnish details of the Bar Association, including names of its President and Secretary, who were responsible for the strike. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 6 August 2025.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar vs. State Of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 1389 of 2025
Coram: Justice J.J. Munir
Picture Source :