No right to strike by advocates; court-boycott restrictions and disciplinary measures were upheld to protect access to justice.

Advocates have no legal right to strike or boycott courts under Article 19(1)(a), because accepting briefs carries a duty to appear and abstention obstructs the administration of justice and litigants' access to speedy adjudication. The freedom of speech and expression cannot be used to justify a court boycott at the expense of the justice delivery system. Directions aimed at curbing boycotts, ensuring listing of matters, securing police assistance where necessary, and initiating disciplinary action against persistent unprofessional conduct were held permissible as measures to preserve uninterrupted court functioning and protect access to justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether advocates have any right to go on strike or boycott courts under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in issuing directions to curb court boycotts and to ensure disciplinary and protective measures for uninterrupted functioning of courts.

Issue (i): Whether advocates have any right to go on strike or boycott courts under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The binding precedents hold that advocates, having accepted briefs, must attend courts and cannot abstain pursuant to a strike or boycott call. A call for strike is incompatible with the duty of an advocate as an officer of the court, obstructs the administration of justice, and deprives litigants of their right to speedy access to justice. The freedom of speech and expression cannot be invoked to justify court boycotts at the expense of litigants and the justice delivery system.

Conclusion: The claimed right to strike or boycott courts is negatived and the issue is answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in issuing directions to curb court boycotts and to ensure disciplinary and protective measures for uninterrupted functioning of courts.

Analysis: The directions were found to be consistent with settled law that courts must proceed with judicial work despite strikes, Bar Councils are required to act against unprofessional conduct, and disciplinary consequences may follow for continued boycott. Measures aimed at ensuring functioning of courts, listing of matters, police assistance when needed, and initiation of disciplinary action were treated as permissible steps to protect access to justice and prevent interference with court proceedings.

Conclusion: The High Court's directions were upheld as justified and the issue is decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's order failed because the boycott of courts was held impermissible and the protective and disciplinary directions were sustained as necessary to preserve the administration of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Advocates have no legal right to strike or boycott courts, and measures taken by courts or authorities to ensure uninterrupted judicial functioning and to discipline such conduct are valid when directed toward preserving access to justice and the orderly administration of justice.

---