Lawyers' Role in Society & Justice Process: Upholding Ethics, Condemning Strikes

The judgment emphasizes that lawyers have a significant role in modernizing society and should not engage in strikes, as it hampers the justice process. Strikes affect the court's ability to deliver justice promptly, eroding public faith in the legal system. Lawyers have ethical obligations to their clients and the court, and courts have condemned such strikes in the past. The judgment calls for strict measures against advocates involved in strikes to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and restore public confidence in the judiciary.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Role and responsibilities of lawyers during strikes.
2. Impact of strikes by advocates on the judicial system and litigants.
3. Legal and ethical obligations of advocates towards their clients and the court.
4. Judicial response and measures against strikes by advocates.

Summary:

1. Role and Responsibilities of Lawyers During Strikes:
The judgment emphasizes that lawyers, as elite members of society, have a significant role in the socio-political modernization of the country. They are guardians of the legal system and are expected to shoulder responsibilities in the larger interest of mankind. Strikes by advocates are seen as antithetical to progress and development, and they cannot be equated with industrial strikes. The services rendered by advocates are regulated by contracts and statutory guidelines, and abstaining from courts hampers the justice process, which is unwarranted u/s the Advocates Act.

2. Impact of Strikes by Advocates on the Judicial System and Litigants:
Strikes by lawyers obstruct the court's process intended to secure justice, affecting not only the legal profession but also the litigants who urgently need justice. The judgment cites several cases, including *Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India & Ors.* and *Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar*, highlighting that litigants have a fundamental right to speedy justice, and frequent adjournments due to strikes erode faith in the justice delivery system.

3. Legal and Ethical Obligations of Advocates Towards Their Clients and the Court:
The judgment reiterates that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence. Strikes deprive clients of their services, which is against professional ethics. Citing *Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra Bombay & Others*, the court emphasized that advocates must follow norms of professional ethics and protect their clients' interests. The judgment also references *In Re: Sanjiv Datta* to stress the importance of improving the quality of service rendered by lawyers and maintaining the profession's dignity.

4. Judicial Response and Measures Against Strikes by Advocates:
The judgment discusses various precedents where courts have condemned strikes by advocates. In *Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P.*, a resolution by the Bar Association expressing a lack of confidence in judicial officers was held to be contempt of court. The judgment also references *Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.*, stating that judicial functions should not be obstructed by strikes or boycotts. The court emphasizes that no leniency can be shown to defaulting parties, and exemplary costs should be imposed on those responsible for strikes. The judgment calls for courts to rise to the occasion and perform their duties without fear or favor, ensuring the preservation of high traditions of law and restoring public confidence in the judiciary.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the detrimental impact of strikes by advocates on the judicial system and litigants, reiterates the legal and ethical obligations of lawyers, and calls for stringent judicial measures to address such strikes.

---