The Allahabad High Court in a petition filed seeking a writ of mandamus for directing authorities to take action against the lawyer and office bearers of the Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia who had been on strike since 31st January 2023, stated that courts are not industrial establishments and Bar Associations and Bar Councils are not trade unions which can go on strike bargaining for their demands.
Brief Facts:
A writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus for directing authorities to take action against the lawyer and office bearers of the Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia who had been on strike since 31st January 2023. On 19th January 2024, the Court was informed that the strike had ended and usual work was being undertaken. Thereafter, the Court directed the President/ Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to disclose what action has been taken in respect of the strike by the Tehsil Bar Association Rasara.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed written instructions on record and the stand taken there is that as of date there is no strike, however, it has not been disclosed as to how many days the advocates were on strike in the concerned Tehsil.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the petitioner had brought on record evidence disclosing that strikes were called even when any family member died or for various other reasons totally unconnected with the profession and further stated that the situation went to the extent that on 26.12.2023, the Bar Association passed a Resolution that the lawyers were very sad due to death of Ex-Chairman of Samajwadi Party and present District President of Samajwadi Party and abstained from work due to this reason.
The court further stated that if the institution of justice and courts of law cannot be equated with industrial establishments where the concept of Trade Unions is utilized to justify strikes by industrial labourers owing to their demand from employers and neither the State Bar Council nor a Bar Association can be treated alike a Trade Union bargaining for their demands and they are well-equipped with all legal means to find out solutions to any problem and lawyers' strike waste not only judicial time but also cause immense loss and harm to all the social values and leads to rising pendency of cases, adversely affecting the system of justice delivery, bringing more and more hardships to the litigant(s) for whom the courts are meant and further abstaining from work for the whole day without any substantial cause also falls in the same category.
It was further stated that if courts of law remain closed for long periods, people may take recourse to other means for redressal of their grievances, including those which may have no sanction of law, like approaching the criminals to settle their disputes, or either turning themselves into criminals and adopting all other polluted means for getting the work done and if this situation persists for a considerable period of time, the resultant effect on the society as well as individuals and the nation as a whole would be unassessable.
The court further referred to the decision of the court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and stated that it has already settled that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer, who has accepted a brief, to refuse to attend the Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council.
Further, it was stated that the overall Scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments take this Court to reach to only one conclusion, that is to the effect that if any member of the Bar including office bearers of concerned Bar Association acts contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court or the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the State Bar Council is competent to remove the concerned advocate/ office bearer from the State Roll of Advocates and to take any other measure(s) prescribed under the law, including against the concerned Bar Association.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to bring on record the guidelines framed by it, if any, in respect of the observance of condolences and other instances under which the lawyers abstain from work in any district or Tehsil of the State of U.P. and whether any action has been taken by it in the instant case or not.
Case Title: Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kshitij Shailendra
Case No.: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1951 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C, Mr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
