Strike/Boycott of courts by Advocates cannot be justified under the guise of freedom of speech and expression: Supreme Court [Read Judgement]

Latest News

In a recent Judgement Supreme Court has held that Strike/Boycott of courts by Advocates cannot be justified under the guise of freedom of speech and expression: Supreme Court.

Case Background:

Advocates in the entire District of Dehradun, in several districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar district in the State of Uttarakhand have been boycotting the Courts on all Saturdays for the past more than 35 years. As the strikes are seriously obstructing the access to justice to the needy litigants, respondent No. 1 was compelled to approach the High Court by way of Writ Petition (PIL). High Court was of the opinion that on all such working days on account of strikes and the conduct of the Advocates in boycotting Courts, it has affected the functioning of the Courts and it contributes to the ever-mounting  pendency of the cases, and held Strikes To be illegal And further Various directions were issued by the High Court.

 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the District Bar Association, Dehradun has preferred the present SLP.

Supreme Court While referring various Judgements ,Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) ; Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (2006) and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P. (2018) held that:

In spite of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal (supra), Common Cause, A Registered Society (supra) and Krishnakant Namrakar (supra) and despite the warnings by the courts time and again, still, in some of the courts, the lawyers go on strikes/are on strikes. It appears that despite the strong words used by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, criticizing the conduct on the part of the lawyers to go on strikes, it appears that the message has not reached. Even despite the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 29.09.2002, thereafter, no further concrete steps are taken even by the Bar Council of India and/or other Bar Councils of the States. A day has now come for the Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of the States to step in and to take concrete steps. It is the duty of the Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and unbecoming conduct by any lawyer. As observed by this Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra), the Bar Council of India is enjoined with a duty of laying down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette for Advocates. It is further observed that this would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that advocates do not behave in an unprofessional and unbecoming manner. Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right to the Bar Council of India to give directions to the State Bar Councils. It is further observed that the Bar 27 Associations may be separate bodies but all advocates who are members of such associations are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils and thus the Bar Councils can always control their conduct.

Therefore, taking a serious note of the fact that despite the aforesaid decisions of this Court, still the lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes, we take suo moto cognizance and issue notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers. The Notices may be made returnable within six weeks from today. The Registry is directed to issue the notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils accordingly.

Read Judgement here:

1 thought on “Strike/Boycott of courts by Advocates cannot be justified under the guise of freedom of speech and expression: Supreme Court [Read Judgement]

Leave a Reply