Revenue Case Paralysed By 68 Adjournments In 102 Hearings Due To Strikes; 'Surprised' Allahabad HC Summons Bar Body Office Bearers

The Allahabad High Court last week expressed deep concern over the repeated adjournments in a revenue case at Tehsil Rudauli (Ayodhya), where out of 102 hearings, 68 were adjourned on account of strikes or condolence calls by the local Bar Association. A bench of Justice Alok Mathur called upon the President and the General Secretary of the Rudauli Bar Association to appear personally and explain the call for boycott on a regular basis and why appropriate action should not be taken against them “for creating such sorry state of affairs” that is the direct result of their conduct. Briefly put, the Court was hearing a plea filed under Article 227 by Mohd Najim Khan, who sought directions for an expeditious hearing in a case under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code pending before the SDM. The order sheet filed with the plea revealed that out of the 102 dates fixed in the case, on 68 dates the case was adjourned due to a call for boycott or condolence by the local bar association. Surprised over this, the bench noted, for the last 21 dates from May 27, 2025, on each date the case has been adjourned on account of a call for boycott by the local bar association. Opining that the issue requires serious consideration, the Bench took note of the plight of the the poor litigants who have to approach the HC as the proceedings before the revenue court remain pending endlessly. Stressing that proceedings in revenue courts are coming to a standstill because of strikes, the bench underlined that such conduct is in gross violation of binding judgments of the Supreme Court, including Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2002), Hussain v. Union of India (2017) and District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya (2020). Quoting from the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling, the High Court reiterated: "Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike...No Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott". Thus, taking serious note of the matter, the Court directed impleadment of the President and General Secretary of Rudauli Bar Association as respondents and issued notices to them to show cause why appropriate proceedings be not initiated against them. The Court also recorded that "professional misconduct of aforesaid lawyers/office bearers may also amount to contempt of court". The office bearers have been directed to appear in person on September 2, 2025, with personal affidavits explaining the repeated boycott calls.Case title - Mohd. Najim Khan vs. The Tahsildar / Assistant Collector First Class, Pargana. Tahsil Rudauli, Ayodhya And AnotherClick Here To Read/Download Order

Revenue Case Paralysed By 68 Adjournments In 102 Hearings Due To Strikes; 'Surprised' Allahabad HC Summons Bar Body Office Bearers

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags