2002 (12) TMI 562 - SC - Indian Laws

Lawyers Cannot Strike or Boycott Courts: Upholding Duty to Justice

The court held that lawyers do not have the right to strike or call for a boycott of courts, emphasizing their duty to assist in the administration of ... No right of lawyers to strike or call for boycott of courts - duty of an advocate who holds a vakalat to attend court - courts not obliged to adjourn on account of strikes or boycotts - disciplinary duty of Bar Councils to prevent and punish unprofessional conduct - Court's power to regulate appearance and conduct in court under Article 145/Section 34 - personal liability of advocate for costs and damages for non-appearance due to strike - limited exception for one-day protest where dignity, integrity or independence of Bar/Bench is at stakeNo right of lawyers to strike or call for boycott of courts - limited exception for one-day protest where dignity, integrity or independence of Bar/Bench is at stake - Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott of courts except in the narrowly confined circumstance of a one-day protest where the dignity, integrity or independence of the Bar or the Bench is genuinely at stake. - HELD THAT: - The Court reviewed earlier decisions and the role of advocates as officers of the Court, holding that abstention from work impairs the administration of justice and infringes litigants' right to speedy trial. Strikes and boycott calls disrupt judicial functioning and are therefore illegal and unprofessional. The only qualified exception recognised is a protest limited to not more than one day where dignity, integrity or independence of the Bar or Bench is at stake; whether an issue falls within that exception is for the Court to decide and the President of the Bar must consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge beforehand. The Court emphasised that protest must not paralyse courts and that other non-disruptive modes of protest are available. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 33, 35]Lawyers have no right to strike or call for boycott; only a limited one-day protest may be overlooked in rare cases involving dignity, integrity or independence of Bar/Bench, subject to the Court's determination.Duty of an advocate who holds a vakalat to attend court - courts not obliged to adjourn on account of strikes or boycotts - personal liability of advocate for costs and damages for non-appearance due to strike - An advocate who has accepted a vakalat must attend Court and cannot abstain from appearance pursuant to a strike or boycott call; Courts must proceed with business and may penalise consequences on the advocate including costs and liability for damages to the client. - HELD THAT: - The Court reiterated precedents that an advocate who accepts a brief is under a professional duty to appear, and non-appearance in consequence of a strike call amounts to professional misconduct, breach of contract and breach of trust. Courts are under a duty to continue proceedings during court hours and need not adjourn because of a strike; they should not become privy to strikes. Where non-appearance due to strike causes prejudice to a litigant, the court may award costs and may permit recovery of such costs (and potentially damages) from the advocate responsible, after affording opportunity to be heard. [Paras 13, 15, 19, 20, 35]An advocate holding a vakalat cannot abstain from attending Court because of a strike or boycott call; courts shall proceed and advocates may be made personally liable for costs and damages arising from such non-appearance.Disciplinary duty of Bar Councils to prevent and punish unprofessional conduct - Bar Councils cannot countenance requisitions/meetings to consider strike calls - Bar Councils have a duty to prevent and discipline strikes and boycott calls by advocates; they cannot permit or give a call for strike and must take disciplinary action against those responsible. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that functions of the Bar Council include laying down standards of professional conduct and ensuring advocates do not behave in an unprofessional manner. Bar Councils must act when strikes or boycott calls are made: requisitions to call meetings for considering strikes should be ignored, and the State Bar Council or Bar Council of India must take disciplinary action against advocates or committee members who permit or call strikes. The Court observed that if Bar Councils fail to act, appellate and supervisory remedies under the Advocates Act (including this Court's powers under Section 38) are available to enforce discipline. [Paras 23, 25, 26, 30]Bar Councils must prevent and discipline strike and boycott calls; they cannot permit meetings to consider such calls and must take prompt disciplinary action against defaulting advocates or office-bearers.Court's power to regulate appearance and conduct in court under Article 145/Section 34 - courts not divested of control or supervision of conduct in court - Courts may frame rules governing the right to appear and conduct in Court (under Article 145 and Section 34) and may, for conduct amounting to contempt or unbecoming behaviour, bar advocates from appearing before particular courts or benches as part of measures to protect the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts. - HELD THAT: - The Court clarified that while Bar Councils regulate the right to practise generally, control of conduct within Court remains a matter for the Courts. Article 145 and Section 34 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to make rules as to persons practicing before them; such rules may condition or restrict the right to appear where an advocate has committed contempt or acted unprofessionally. This supervisory power is distinct from disciplinary powers of Bar Councils and may be exercised to protect the majesty and orderly functioning of the Courts; High Courts were directed to frame necessary rules under Section 34. [Paras 34, 45, 46]Courts possess power to frame rules regulating appearance and conduct in Court and may, consistent with Article 145 and Section 34, bar advocates guilty of contempt or unbecoming conduct from appearing before those courts.Final Conclusion: The petitions are disposed of holding that strikes and calls for boycott by lawyers are illegal and unprofessional; advocates holding vakalats must attend Court, courts must continue judicial business notwithstanding strike calls, Bar Councils must prevent and discipline such conduct, and courts may frame rules under Article 145/Section 34 to regulate appearance and bar advocates for contempt or unbecoming conduct, save for a narrowly confined one-day protest in rare cases affecting dignity, integrity or independence of the Bar/Bench. 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.