One-Day Lawyers' Strike Permitted In Rare Cases, But Can't Assault Lawyer Attending Court: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has observed that a one-day strike or abstention from court work by lawyers may be permitted in the rarest of rare cases involving the dignity, integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench, subject to certain conditions.

However, such an exception cannot extend to intimidating, obstructing or assaulting an advocate who chooses to attend court.

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty made the observation while dismissing a contempt case against office-bearers of the Metropolitan Criminal Court Bar Association, Nampally, arising out of a one-day boycott call and allegations that an advocate was prevented from entering the court premises and assaulted.

The Court declined to proceed further in contempt, noting disputed questions of fact arising from the incident, the pendency of criminal proceedings and the absence of sufficient material establishing wilful disobedience attributable to the individual respondents.

It reiterated that advocates have no right to resort to strikes or call for a boycott of courts, and an advocate cannot be compelled to participate in such a strike or boycott. It however noted that the Supreme Court has recognised a limited exception in the rarest of rare cases involving the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench, where abstention from work for not more than one day may be considered.

The exception is subject to the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court. In particular, the President of the Bar is required to consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge, as the case may be, before advocates decide to abstain from court work, and the decision of the concerned judicial authority is final and binding on the Bar, the High Court noted.

The Court further clarified that even where the circumstances fall within this limited exception, it cannot be invoked to justify coercion, intimidation, obstruction or physical assault against an advocate who chooses to attend court.

“No material has been placed before this Court to establish that the President of the Bar Association had consulted the District Judge concerned, i.e., in the present case, Metropolitan Sessions Judge concerned before passing the resolution dated 16.06.2025. Therefore, the respondents cannot seek to justify every act undertaken pursuant to the resolution merely on the ground that the protest was confined to one day or was claimed to be in solidarity with an advocate. Even assuming that the circumstances leading to the resolution could be brought within the limited exception recognised in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal's case, such exception would extend only to the limited abstention from Court work contemplated therein and would not extend to any act of coercion, intimidation, obstruction or physical assault upon an advocate who chooses to attend Court...

The legal position remains unequivocal that the limited exception recognised in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal's case (cited supra) does not authorise a Bar Association or its office-bearers to prevent an advocate from attending his professional duties or to subject such advocate to any adverse consequence for disregarding a boycott call". 

The court however clarified that its view shall not be understood as approving, condoning or legitimising any act of assault, intimidation, coercion or obstruction of an advocate seeking to attend Court, despite call of boycott by ar association.

The case arose from a June 16, 2025 resolution calling on the Association's members to abstain from court work in solidarity with advocates who had allegedly been attacked. The petitioner Advocate Vijay Gopal, appearing in person, said he went to the Nampally court complex for a scheduled matter but was stopped and assaulted after refusing to join the boycott. Police registered an FIR on his complaint and a counter-FIR on a complaint by the Association's General Secretary.

Gopal sought contempt action against the Association's office-bearers. He argued that advocates could not be compelled to participate in a boycott and that preventing him from entering court violated the Supreme Court's directions on lawyers' strikes.

The respondents disputed the allegations and said contempt liability could not be imposed collectively on office-bearers without proof of each person's role. They also pointed to the criminal proceedings arising from the incident.

The High Court reaffirmed that lawyers have no general right to strike or boycott court work. The Court said the one-day duration of the protest and its stated purpose of solidarity could not justify coercion. If the alleged obstruction and assault by respondent No. 5 were established, they would fall outside the limited exception.

The allegations against the other office-bearers, however, did not identify individual acts sufficient to establish contempt. The alleged assault was disputed and was already the subject of the two criminal cases. The Court declined to determine those contested facts in parallel contempt proceedings. It also noted that Gopal was subsequently able to enter the premises and attend his matter that day.

Dismissing the case, the Court directed Bar Association office-bearers to ensure that future protests do not obstruct access to court or harm anyone who chooses to attend.

Appearance: Vijay Gopal in person; G. Ashok Reddy, M.P.K. Aditya, Ponnam Ashok Goud and Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan for the respective respondents.