The Punjab and Haryana High Court has urged members of the Bar to reconsider their decision to go on strike in protest against the implementation of the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme, emphasising that such actions disrupt access to justice.

These observations were made while hearing a Public Interest Litigation alleging denial of access to justice to litigants across Punjab on account of the ongoing strike by lawyers protesting against the Legal Aid LADC Scheme.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor orally said,

“There is no way we are going to succumb… There is no way we are going to accept that unreasonable demands have to be met in an unreasonable manner. This is what is going to come.”

The Court further added that, “What they thought was that if we put more pressure, the system will succumb to this. The entire State of Punjab for the last 27 days is in a state of shutdown so far as the availability of judicial remedy is concerned. We are not going to take it lightly. Whatever is appropriate, we are going to do...”

Previously 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.

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.

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.

The matter will be heard further post lunch.

Title: ARVIND SETH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS