After hearing the President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, members of the Bar Council and senior advocates, the Court expressed hope that the dispute would be resolved amicably without requiring judicial intervention.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed:

"On our request, the President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, as well as some of the members of the Bar Council and learned Senior Counsels, have appeared before the Court. They are of the view that such issues ought to be resolved amicably at the level of the Bar itself."

The Bench further observed:

"We hope and trust that wiser heads will prevail and this Court would not be called upon to deal with the issue raised in the present matter on the judicial side."

The PIL has been filed by advocate Arvind Seth, a practising lawyer before the High Court, raising concerns over the disruption in the functioning of district courts across Punjab due to the ongoing strike by various lawyers' associations.

According to the petition, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) introduced the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) System, which envisages an institutional mechanism for providing legal representation to persons entitled to legal aid. Following the introduction of the scheme, several bar associations in Punjab objected to it, contending that it adversely affected opportunities available to practising advocates under the earlier panel counsel system.

The petition states that, in protest against the scheme, several bar associations passed resolutions and called for an indefinite "no work" strike.

It is further averred that the ongoing strike has led to repeated delays in judicial proceedings in district courts across Punjab, thereby denying litigants access to justice.

Significantly, the petitioner has clarified that the PIL does not seek adjudication on the merits of the dispute surrounding the LADC Scheme. Rather, it contends that, irrespective of the merits of the lawyers' demands, court functioning cannot be allowed to remain paralysed, since access to justice is guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Relying on settled law that advocates have neither a legal nor a fundamental right to strike or boycott courts, the petition argues that access to courts forms an essential component of the rule of law.

On this basis, the petitioner has sought directions to ensure the smooth functioning of all district courts in Punjab and to prevent any obstruction to judicial work.

Appearing in person, Seth submitted before the Court:

"Protest by legitimate means is well recognized for highlighting issues of importance, but while doing so it is not open for anyone to interfere with the administration of justice or to deny access to justice to litigants."

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 23.