Advocates' Strikes Illegal, Amounts To Misconduct, Contempt of Court: Uttarakhand HC [Read Judgment]

In an important judgment delivered today, the Uttarakhand High Court held that the resort to strikes/boycott of Courts by Advocates is illegal and 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 and Justice Alok Kumar Verma observed that resort to strikes is unprofessional and unbecoming of an Advocate who, having accepted a brief, cannot refuse to attend Court pursuant to a call for strike or boycott. The court was considering a PIL filed by Ishwar Shandilya against lawyers' strike on all Saturdays, for the past three and half decades, in the region Observing that the Advocates owe a duty both to the Court and to their client and also obliged to safeguard the fundamental rights of all litigants, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, for a speedy trial, the court said 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, and ways and means should be found to tackle this problem. The bench also held that Bar Associations should not indulge in strikes and every resolution to go on strike, and to abstain from work, is per-se contempt. Irrespective of the genuineness of the cause, strike by lawyers is not an acceptable The bench said that irrespective of the genuineness of the cause, strike by lawyers is not an acceptable mode of protest. The bench observed: 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. Strikes ex-facie illegal-Lawyer should boldly ignore it 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. Abstention of Courts, after condolence references not to be permitted Abstention of Courts, after condolence references for family members of Advocates, should not be permitted. Condolence references for Senior Advocates, or for Advocates practicing regularly in Courts, can be held once in a while, say once in two/three months and not frequently. Condolence references for Senior Advocates, or for Advocates practicing regularly in Courts, can be held once in a while, say once in two/three months and not frequently.. Periodic reports may be called by the High Court, from all District Judges, to ascertain the number of Court working days lost because of strike/boycott of Courts or illegal condolence references. No condolence reference should be permitted except in terms of the Circular issued by the High Court dated 12.03.2019; and the said Circular should be strictly implemented. The High Court may call for periodic reports to ascertain whether or not such unhealthy practices of abstention from Courts, resorting to condolence references on the demise of family members of an Advocate, have been curbed by all District Judges and Subordinate Courts in the State.Lawyers' Strike Amount To Contempt 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...

Advocates' Strikes Illegal, Amounts To Misconduct, Contempt of Court: Uttarakhand HC [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

"Resort to strikes is unprofessional and unbecoming of an Advocate who, having accepted a brief, cannot refuse to attend Court pursuant to a call for strike or boycott."

Tags