2002 (12) TMI 562 - SC - Indian Laws

Lawyers Cannot Strike or Boycott Courts: Upholding Duty to Justice

EX-CAPT. HARISH UPPAL Versus UNION OF INDIA

EX-CAPT. HARISH UPPAL Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2012 (279) E.L.T. 168 (SC) , 2003 AIR 739, 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 186, 2003 (2) SCC 45, 2002 (10) JT 310, 2002 ... Issues Involved:1. Right of lawyers to strike and/or call for boycott of courts.2. Legality of strikes and boycotts by lawyers.3. Responsibility of Bar Councils and Bar Associations in monitoring and preventing strikes.4. Consequences for lawyers participating in strikes or boycotts.5. Mechanisms for addressing grievances of lawyers without resorting to strikes.Detailed Analysis:1. Right of Lawyers to Strike and/or Call for Boycott of Courts:The primary issue addressed is whether lawyers have the right to strike or call for a boycott of courts. The judgment unequivocally states that lawyers do not have such a right. It emphasizes that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty to assist in the administration of justice and cannot disrupt court proceedings through strikes or boycotts. The court held that strikes by lawyers are illegal and that lawyers cannot abstain from appearing in court even if it is in response to a call by a Bar Association or Bar Council.2. Legality of Strikes and Boycotts by Lawyers:The court reaffirmed that strikes and boycotts by lawyers are illegal. It cited previous judgments, including the case of Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., which held that lawyers' strikes are unprofessional and amount to misconduct. The court also noted that strikes interfere with the administration of justice and infringe upon the fundamental rights of litigants to a speedy trial. The judgment emphasized that lawyers must find alternative methods to express their grievances without disrupting court proceedings.3. Responsibility of Bar Councils and Bar Associations:The judgment highlighted the responsibility of Bar Councils and Bar Associations to prevent and monitor strikes. It directed the Bar Council of India to incorporate clauses from the interim order into their disciplinary rules to ensure that strikes are not resorted to except in the rarest of rare cases. The court also suggested that Bar Councils and Bar Associations should take disciplinary action against lawyers who call for or participate in strikes.4. Consequences for Lawyers Participating in Strikes or Boycotts:The court made it clear that lawyers who participate in strikes or boycotts would face consequences. It held that lawyers who abstain from court due to a strike call would be personally liable to pay costs and damages to their clients. The judgment also stated that courts should not adjourn cases due to strikes and must proceed with matters even in the absence of lawyers. Additionally, it was suggested that courts could frame rules to debar lawyers guilty of contempt or unprofessional conduct from appearing before them.5. Mechanisms for Addressing Grievances:The judgment recognized the need for mechanisms to address the grievances of lawyers without resorting to strikes. It endorsed the resolution by the Bar Council of India to establish Grievances Redressal Committees at various levels (Taluk, District, High Court, and Supreme Court) to address lawyers' issues. The court emphasized that lawyers should use legal and constitutional methods, such as making representations, holding peaceful demonstrations, and seeking legal remedies, to address their grievances.Conclusion:The judgment concluded that lawyers have no right to strike or call for a boycott of courts. It directed Bar Councils and Bar Associations to take disciplinary action against those who call for or participate in strikes. The court also emphasized the need for alternative methods to address grievances and suggested the establishment of Grievances Redressal Committees. The judgment aimed to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system and uphold the rule of law.