'They Are In Contempt': Supreme Court Pulls Up P&H HC Bar Association Members For Opposing Undertaking Against Strikes

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 13) pulled up members of the Executive Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association who opposed a resolution to tender an unconditional undertaking that the Bar Association will not indulge in boycott of court work in the future.“Those who play with litigants must be dealt with firm hands. This must stop. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court every day 5000 to 7000 cases are listed. One day boycott by the lawyers destroys the system. These members who have the audacity to oppose the resolution must learn a lesson of a lifetime…What is this going on? 75 years of existence of Constitution, blatantly lawyers go on strike. This is the third of fourth contempt notice we are continuing to issue to the members of the High Court bar. If High Court Bar Associations are doing this what others must be doing? This must stop. Time has come to send at last one member of the bar to the place which he deserves so that signal will be given loud and clear.”A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal stated that the members who opposed the resolution appear to have no respect for the law laid down in Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India prohibiting lawyers' strikes.“Prima facie it appears to us that opposing the resolution proposed itself indicates that the concerned members have no respect and no regard for the law laid down by this court”, the Court stated in its order.The Court warned of strict consequences, stating, “We make it clear that unless the members of the Executive Committee who oppose the resolution to give an undertaking give similar undertaking before the court, we will not close the issue of contempt.”The case pertains to members of the Bar Association abstaining from work on July 26, 2024, leading to disruption in court proceedings. The Court took cognizance in August 2024, demanding an explanation for the conduct.In November, the Court remarked that litigants should not be held “to ransom,” pointing out the availability of alternative means to protest. Despite initial resistance, the office bearers of the Bar Association eventually assured the Court that they would file an unconditional undertaking to abide by the law.Today, the Court questioned why some members of the Executive Committee refused to support the resolution. “Ultimately, the decision was to give an undertaking to abide by the law laid down by this Court. Even to that, some members have opposed. Obviously, they are in contempt”, Justice Oka said.The Counsel for the Bar Association clarified that the members had not opposed, and merely asked that the resolution be placed before the general council of the association. Justice Oka responded, “We can't understand a bar member saying that this executive committee should not decide it should go to the general council. This is the conduct. These are the people who will again go to strike. We will not leave them like this. We are surprised to know that somebody has opposed this.”The Court noted that the undertaking filed by the acting president of the Bar Association, Jasdev Singh Brar, was based on the majority decision in the executive committee's meeting on December 9, 2024. However, certain members of the executive committee opposed it.The order directed the acting president to:Supply a copy of the Court's order to the members who opposed the resolution.Provide the names and addresses of these members on record by the next hearing.Place the December 9 resolution on record.The matter is scheduled for further hearing on December 20, 2024.Justice Oka highlighted the detrimental effects of lawyers' strikes, remarking, “In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, every day 5,000 to 7,000 cases are listed. One day of boycott destroys the system. These members, who have the audacity to oppose the resolution, must learn a lesson for a lifetime. We are here for benefit of the litigant.”Drawing comparisons to measures adopted in Odisha, Justice Oka said that cases should be transferred to adjacent states when lawyers of a court abstain from work. "Once that pinch is there, lawyers would never think of going on boycott," he observed.Case no. – MA 2046/2024Case Title – M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Click Here To Read/Download Order

'They Are In Contempt': Supreme Court Pulls Up P&H HC Bar Association Members For Opposing Undertaking Against Strikes

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags