“Irrespective of the genuineness of the cause, strike by lawyers is not an acceptable.”
The High Court of Uttarakhand held that the resort to strikes/boycott of Courts by Advocates is illegal & that it is also a misconduct for which disciplinary action can be taken by the State Bar Council and its Disciplinary Committees.
The bench comprising the Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan & Justice Alok Kumar Verma observed that resorting to strikes is unprofessional & unbecoming of an Advocate who, having accepted a brief, can’t refuse to attend Court pursuant to a call for strike or boycott.
The HC was dealing with a PIL filed by Ishwar Shandilya against lawyers' strike on all Saturdays, for the past 3 & half decades, in particular region.
The High Court observed that the Advocates owe a duty both to the Court & to their client & also obliged to safeguard the fundamental rights of all the litigants, under the Article 21 of the Constitution, for a speedy trial.
The HC stated that the issue regarding strikes/boycott of Courts by Advocates, needs to be addressed by all concerned including the State Governments, State Bar Councils, Bar Associations as well as the High Court & ways and means should be found to tackle this problem.
The bench held that Bar Associations shouldn’t indulge in strikes & every resolution to go on strike, & abstain from work, is per-se contempt.
The High Court observed that,
“Other modes of protest, which do not disturb Court proceedings or adversely affects the fundamental rights of litigants to speedy justice, can be resorted to. In case of a just cause, Advocates can make a representation to the District Judge or to the High Court. Protest, if any required, can be resorted to by other means such as giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying banners and/or placards out of court premises, wearing black or white or any colour armbands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. Where the dignity, integrity and the independence of the Bar and/or the Bench is at stake, abstention from work, for not more than one day, may be resorted to. Even for such abstention, the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge, and the decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final.”
The bench further held that strikes are illegal and stated that,
“Participation of lawyers, in boycott of Courts, is ex-facie illegal. Even if there is a boycott call, a lawyer should boldly ignore the same. Unless there are compelling circumstances, and approval for a symbolic strike of one day is obtained, Advocates should not resort to strikes or abstain from Court work. It is unethical for an Advocate to organize and participate in strikes, or to abstain from Court, when the cause of his client is called for hearing. An Advocate, who abstains from Court because of a strike call, commits professional misconduct, a breach of professional duty besides a breach of trust, and is liable for the consequences. Boycott of Courts and strikes by Bar Associations impinge on the obligation of an Advocate towards his client and to the Court. Suspension of court work, after condolence references for family members of Advocates, is illegal.”
The bench further noted that abstention of Courts, after condolence references for family members of Advocates, shouldn’t be permitted. Condolence references for Senior Advocates, or for Advocates practicing regularly in Courts, can be held once in a while, say once in 2-3 months but not frequently.
Periodic reports may be called by the High Court, from all the District Judges, to ascertain the no. of Court working days lost because of strike/boycott of Courts or illegal condolence references.
Noting that Lawyers' Strike Amount to Contempt, the High court stated that,
“Strikes are in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and amount to contempt. The office bearers of the Associations, who gave the call for the strike, cannot avoid their liability for contempt. Every resolution to go on strike, and to abstain from work, is per-se contempt. In case any attempt is made by any Advocate to enter the Court hall to stop Court proceedings, or in preventing other Advocates from entering Courts to argue their cases, action may be initiated by the Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the erring Advocate by sending a report to the High Court. The High Court may punish an Advocate for contempt, and then debar him from practicing for such specified period as may be permissible in accordance with law. However, without exercising contempt jurisdiction, no punishment can be imposed by the High Court by way of disciplinary action.”
Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma said that it is the constitutional responsibility of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases & take such stringent measures as may be required in the interests of administration of justice.
The High Court is duty bound to insulate judicial functionaries within their territory from being demoralised, because of onslaughts by Advocates resorting to strikes/boycotts, by giving them full protection in discharging their duties without fear.
Picture Source :
