The Supreme Court, on Monday, delivered a stern rebuke to lawyers participating in strikes, emphasizing that such actions undermine the justice delivery system and are unacceptable for those in the legal profession. The court’s reprimand was directed at the Faizabad Bar Association, which had abstained from work for 66 out of 134 days between November 2023 and April 2024.
Court’s Strong Stance on Lawyer Strikes
The bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed profound disapproval of the Faizabad lawyers’ conduct during the hearing. “They abstained from work for 66 days out of 134 days. Do they have any right to hold the license of the bar association? They must remember they are a part of the system. They are trying to browbeat the high court and the district judge… We are warning them and all bar councils in the country. We are putting them on notice,” the bench stated, emphasizing the severity of the situation.
Bar Association’s Response and Court’s Orders
Senior advocate Rakesh Khanna, representing the Faizabad Bar Association, argued that the lawyers were not on strike. Despite his efforts to clarify the situation, the bench remained resolute and demanded strict actions. “We want personal affidavits of all your office bearers,” the bench instructed.
The court’s order required the bar association to obtain a written undertaking from all its members, pledging not to engage in strikes in the future. “After obtaining the undertaking from all members, every office bearer shall file an affidavit before the district judge, high court, and Supreme Court that they shall never pass any resolution for abstaining from work. For redressal of any grievance, they shall approach the district judge or the administrative judge of the high court,” the order specified.
Rejection of Stay Plea and Continuing Oversight
The bench declined to stay the high court’s order, which had established a panel of lawyers to manage the bar association’s affairs and conduct elections for its governing council by December 2024. The high court also warned that any future strike calls by the bar association would result in a suo motu contempt case against them.
“We won’t stay the high court order. The high court has set up a committee. We will not allow you to function in the meantime. What you have been doing is very disturbing and pathetic. We won’t pass any order of stay because it would demoralise the high court and our district judiciary. The high court has acted with a lot of composure despite the conduct of the bar association,” the bench asserted.
Impact on the Justice System
The bench highlighted the negative impact of such strikes on the broader justice system, pointing out that litigants and witnesses often overcome significant financial and logistical hurdles only to find courts hindered by lawyer absences. The judges commended the Supreme Court Bar Association as a model of professionalism, noting its absence of strike activities, and questioned how lawyers engaging in disruptive actions could be considered fit for the legal profession.
Legal Precedents and Future Hearings
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Harish Uppal case of 2002 established that lawyer strikes are illegal and unethical, obstructing justice and infringing on litigants’ rights. The court will revisit the matter on September 13 to ensure compliance with its directives and further address the issue.
Also read: Kolkata Doctor Rape-Murder Case: Protests Intensify in Kolkata’s Lalbazaar
