CONTENTS

Statement of Problem..................................................................................................................................2
Hypothesis...................................................................................................................................................3
Research Objectives....................................................................................................................................4
Review of Literature....................................................................................................................................5
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................8
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................8
1. Lawyers Right to Strike As a Professional Misconduct......................................................................9
EX-CAPT. HARISH UPPAL V. UNION OF INDIA- 2003 ................................................................10
1.1. Considering the role of bar council court observed that –.........................................................10
1.2. Court power to debar lawyer from apperance before court-.....................................................11
1.3. Supreme court – final authority of appeal -...............................................................................12
2. Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union Ff India - 2006.......................................................12
2.1. Jurisdiction of court via- a- vis apperance before court -..........................................................13
2.2. Appearance of contemptuous, contumacious lawyer can erode the dignity of court-.................14
2.3 Distinction between power of court to regulate appearance before court and bar council to frame
rules via-a – vis conduct of lawyer-.......................................................................................................14
2.4 Lawyers indulgement in strike – rarest of rare cases-....................................................................15
3.1 Lawyers strike hampering the right to speedy justice-.....................................................................15
3. Hussain v. Union of India-2017 -.......................................................................................................16
4. District Bar Association, Dehradun Through its Secretary v Ishwar sandaliya-2020-.......................17
5.1 Bar council needs to rise to the occasion-.......................................................................................17
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................18
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The recent controversy surmounting around the lawyer’s involvement in strike and boycotting
Court which is detriment to the functioning of the Court and hampering the speedy disposal of
case. Whether Lawyers can indulge in practices of boycotting Court under the guise of Article 19
(1) (g) and if yes, to what extent?
HYPOTHESIS
The hypothesis of Current Research paper is that the practices of Lawyers to boycott Court in the
name of Strike for putting their grievances to the appropriate Authority is Constitutionally
protected under Article 19 (1) (g) .
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1. Whether Lawyers has a right to boycott Court in the name of Strike and hamper the
functioning of the Court under Article 19 (1) (g)?

2. If No, Is there any exigency where Bar Council can call for a strike as a Symbolic Act with
prior approval of the Court?

3. Whether Court’s Power to expunge a Lawyer from appearing before Court for involving in
practices such as boycotting Court is in conflict with power of Bar Council to regulate the
conduct of Lawyers.

4. What are the liabilities of the Lawyers towards the Court as well as his client for his non-
appearance before the Court as Lawyers has to perform simultaneously dual duty, one towards
his Client and second towards the Court as an Officer of Court.

5. Is the present sets of norms framed by Bar Council of India suffice to deter such contumacious
Lawyer from boycotting Court and hampering the administration of Justice? Or is there any need
from the Higher Court to frame regulation to ensure the regular appearance of these Lawyers in
Court as that speedy disposal of cases may takes place.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. Strikes have played a crucial role in shaping and moulding the employer – employee
relations and emancipation of workmen but with the passage of time and enactment of
several social – welfare laws, they have lost their relevance. Strike does more harm than
justice. Sufferer is the society- public at large. The strikers and their supporters should
contribute their mite to ensure harmony in society. ( Sandeep S. Desai, Journal of Indian
Law Institute, April, 2005 )
2. The legal system holds the responsibility of maintaining, creating, changing and even
eliminating any nuisance in the laws prevailing in the system of the country to maintain
peace and harmony. But sometimes this system comes to a halt when people at a position
of responsibility in the legal system stands against any hindrances in an unlawful manner
or in a manner which is not apt for them as a strike. The word strike is usually associated
with people at the workplace like labourers, employees, employers and not for the
professionals of the legal system. The focus of this article lies upon the strike called upon
various occasions by the respected lawyers/ advocates of the country varying from
District Courts, all the way to the High Courts and Supreme Courts. (Ayush Pandia , Law
Times journal, March, 2020)
3. The fundamental duty of the judiciary is to serve people who seek themselves for justice
and to be able to do this, it is very important that every branch of its co-ordinate and work
together. Any deficiency in the system would lead to a violation of the fundamental right
to a speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the call to strike
by advocates has a negative effect on the functioning of the judiciary. The frequent
protests and strikes hamper the administration of justice, leading to delays in trial and
ultimately to the pendency of cases. From time to time, the Supreme Court used its right
to strike by lawyers in its various rulings and instructed the litigants to work effectively
for justice without any failures. ( Justice Pana Chand Jain, 1995).
4. The Law Commission in its 266th Report noted that “The advocates’ conduct in courts,
behaviour with litigants and their unprofessional conduct, including the act of going on
frequent strikes as a measure of protest for irrelevant issues, has reached terrifying
proportions.” The Commission, on a perusal of data received from various High Courts,
found that “strikes by the advocates were rampant throughout the length and breadth of
the country with little variation in degree For example, between 2012 and 2016, lawyers
in Dehradun and Haridwar district were on strike for an average of 91 days and 103 days
per year. In eight districts (Muzaffarnagar, Faizabad, Sultanpur, Varanasi, Chandauli,
Ambedkar Nagar, Saharanpur and and Jaunpur) in Uttar Pradesh, lawyers were on strike
for an average of 115 days a year in the period between 2011 and 2016. (Rangin pallav
Tripathy , Deccan herald, 20 Jan, 2020)
LAWYERS RIGHT TO GO ON STRIKE UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) : AN ANALYSIS
WITH REFERENCE TO JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

ABSTRACT
“Since strikes and boycotts are prohibited by the judgement of Supreme Court in Ex-Captain
Harish Uppal’s case and now the Law Commission has also recommended that it should not be
resorted to and be declared illegal and therefore it should be deemed as misconduct. Eventually
the ultimate sufferers are litigants and the system as a whole. But there are instances where the
independence of judiciary is itself at stake, then in such cases a token strike of a day can be
observed just to show that there is a large scale resentment against a particular action.

Constitution of India provides for an independent judiciary for the efficient administration of
justice. Roscoe Pound, an eminent jurist states that “historically, there are three ideas involved in
a profession: organization, learning, and a spirit of public service.” The most important of these
three elements is public service. Legal profession also requires adherence to its norms and
devotion towards the society. It is the prime duty of a lawyer to answer the call for public service
on time. Going on strike brings disgrace not only to their profession but to the justice delivering
system as whole. Any delay in disposal of cases not only creates disillusionment amongst the
litigants but also undermines the capability of the system to impart justice in an effective
manner.11Justice delayed is justice denied. It infringes the right to speedy trial of litigant which
is not admissible on the part of law care taker. One who secures law should ensure law.

INTRODUCTION
The right not to work could be comprehended as right to strike. The word "strike" has been
defined under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Strike is the act of stopping
work by a body of workmen for the purpose of coercing their employer to accede to some
demands they have made upon him. A perusal of various provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 would reveal that workers have no absolute right to go on strike. Section 22 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down circumstances in which strike in public utility services
is prohibited. Under Section 23 there are restrictions imposed on workmen from going on strike
in the circumstances enumerated therein. Section 24 on the other hand lays down that a strike
shall be illegal, if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or Section 23 or is
continued in contravention of an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 10 or sub-section
(4-A) of Section 10-A. It is regarded as a powerful weapon for collective bargaining though.

If we look into the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Legal Practitioners Act, it becomes
evident that the position of advocates is quite different from an employee. An advocate is a
person learned in the law and duly admitted to practice, who assists his client with advice and
pleads for him in open court. It is the professional body of lawyers - the Bar Council of India
which lays down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates to safeguard the
rights, privileges and interests of advocates. A Code of Ethics for the legal profession in India
was framed as early as 1962. It details the duties of advocates. Bar Council of India has also
framed rules in exercise of its rule-making power under the Advocates Act, 1961. Chapter II of
Part VI of these "Rules Governing Advocates" prescribe standards of professional conduct and
etiquette for lawyers.

The Preamble to these Rules states the duties and obligations of lawyers in general terms. Rules I
and II of Chapter II of the rules lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette and
duties to the client and to the Court. Rule 12 provides that an advocate shall not withdraw from
engagements once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice
is given to the client. Rule 15 provides that it shall be the duty of an advocate freely to uphold
the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant
consequences to himself or to any other. Rule 24 lays down that an advocate shall not do
anything whereby he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.
The rights and privileges of an advocate carry with them the corresponding duty not to abuse
them. Thus when an advocate accepts a brief it is his bounden duty to attend to his client's
interest with due diligence and if he fails to do so, he is likely to be dealt with for neglect and is
also answerable to the client. If he is unable to attend when the case is called, he is bound to
make some other arrangements for the proper representation of his client or the brief should be
returned in good time. In short, the advocates owe a duty not only to their clients, but also to the
court and are bound to cooperate with the court in the orderly administration of justice.
 1. LAWYERS RIGHT TO STRIKE AS A PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
According to the constitutional perspective right to strike is a fundamental corollary conferred by
part III of the constitution under the right to freedom of association Art 19(c) where a group of
people upholding a common interest can come together and demand of their rights. However
freedom of association under Art 19 is not an absolute right, certain reasonable restrictions are
imposed on it. Therefore one of the important question arises in the legal profession is that do
lawyers have the right to call for a strike. The Supreme Court and High courts in its various
verdicts had made it clear that Lawyer’s strike is illegal and necessary steps should be taken to
curb the growing tendency.

The Court has discussed the Lawyers right under Article 19 (1) (g) to call for a stike or indulge
in the strike to boycott Court appearance in various Cases-

EX-CAPT. HARISH UPPAL V. UNION OF INDIA- 2003 1

The Court has specifically observed and held that the lawyers have no right to go on strike or
even token strike or to give a call for strike. It is also further observed that can’t they while
holding Vakalat on behalf of clients, abstain from appearing in courts in pursuance of a call for
strike or boycott. It is further observed by this Court that it is unprofessional as well as
unbecoming for a lawyer to refuse to attend the court even in pursuance of a call for strike or
boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is further observed that an Advocate is an
officer of the court and enjoys a special status in the society; Advocates have obligations and
duties to ensure the smooth functioning of the court; they owe a duty to their clients and strikes
interfere with the administration of justice.

1.1. Considering the role of bar council court observed that –

An advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court may also, as already noticed, be guilty of
professional misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council
of India to punish that advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence,
as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case. We do not entertain any doubt
that the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India, as the case may be, when apprised of
the established contumacious conduct of an advocate by the High Court or by this Court, would
rise to the occasion, and take appropriate action against such an advocate.

1
Ex Capt. Harish Uppal case [(2003) 2 SCC 45].
Under Article 144 of the Constitution ‘all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India
shall act in aid of the Supreme Court’. The Bar Council which performs a public duty and is
charged with the obligation to protect the dignity of the profession and maintain professional
standards and etiquette is also obliged to act ‘in aid of the Supreme Court’ The Bar Council
which performs a public duty and is charged with the obligation to protect the dignity of the
profession and maintain professional standards and etiquette is also obliged to act ‘in aid of the
Supreme Court’. It must, whenever facts warrant, rise to the occasion and discharge its duties
uninfluenced by the position of the contemner advocate. It must act in accordance with the
prescribed procedure, whenever its attention is drawn by this Court to the contumacious and
unbecoming conduct of an advocate which has the tendency to interfere with due administration
of justice. It is possible for the High Courts also to draw the attention of the Bar Council of the
State to a case of professional misconduct of a contemner advocate to enable the State Bar
Council to proceed in the manner prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. There
is no justification to assume that the Bar Councils would not rise to the occasion, as they are
equally responsible to uphold the dignity of the courts and the majesty of law and prevent any
interference in the administration of justice.

Nothing is more destructive of public confidence in the administration of justice than incivility,
rudeness or disrespectful conduct on the part of a counsel towards the court or disregard by the
court of the privileges of the Bar. In case the Bar Council, even after receiving ‘reference’ from
the Court, fails to take action against the advocate concerned, this Court might consider invoking
its powers under Section 38 of the Act by sending for the record of the proceedings from the Bar
Council and passing appropriate orders. Of course, the appellate powers under Section 38 would
be available to this Court only and not to the High Courts. We, however, hope that such a
situation would not arise.

1.2. Court power to debar lawyer from apperance before court-

In a given case it may be possible, for this Court or the High Court, to prevent the contemner
advocate to appear before it till he purges himself of the contempt but that is much different from
suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practise as an advocate. In a case of
contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-Record,
this Court possesses jurisdiction, under the Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege
to practise as an Advocate-on-Record because that privilege is conferred by this Court and the
power to grant the privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that
privilege, however, does not amount to suspending or revoking his licence to practise as an
advocate in other courts or tribunals.

In our view it is the duty of the Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or
unbecoming conduct. This being their duty no Bar Council can even consider giving a call for
strike or a call for boycott. It follows that the Bar Councils and even Bar Associations can never
consider or take seriously any requisition calling for a meeting to consider a call for a strike or a
call for boycott.

1.3. Supreme court – final authority of appeal -

Section 38 of the Advocates Act provides that even in disciplinary matters the final appellate
authority is the Supreme Court even if the Bar Councils do not rise to the occasion and perform
their duties by taking disciplinary action on a complaint from a client against an advocate for
non-appearance by reason of a call for strike or boycott, on an appeal the Supreme Court can and
will. Apart from this, as set out in Ramon Services case 2every court now should and must mulct
advocates who hold vakalats but still refrain from attending courts in pursuance of a strike call
with costs. Such costs would be in addition to the damages which the advocate may have to pay
for the loss suffered by his client by reason of his non-appearance.

Court further observed that merely holding strikes as illegal would not be sufficient in the
present-days situation nor would it serve any purpose. Some concrete joint action is required to
be taken by the Bench and the Bar to see that there are no strikes any more. That, thereafter, this
Court directed that (a) all the Bar Associations in the country shall implement the resolution
dated 29.09.2002 passed by the Bar Council of India, 3 and (b) under Section 34 of the Advocates
Act, the High Courts would frame necessary rules so that appropriate actions can be taken
against defaulting advocate/advocates.

2
(2001) 1 SCC 118 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 3 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 152.
3
Resolution dated 29.09.2002 passed by the Bar Council of India, by which it was resolved, inter alia, to constitute
the Grievance Redressel Committees at the Taluk/Sub-Division or Tehsil levels, at the District level, High Court and
Supreme Court levels.
2. COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY V. UNION FF INDIA 4- 2006
It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a
brief to refuse to attend court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar
Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that courts are under an obligation to hear and
decide cases brought before them and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on
strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of courts to go on with matters or otherwise it
would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike.

A lawyer's duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of court(s). Lawyers have also
known that the advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if
the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call.5

It must also be remembered that an advocate is an officer of the court and enjoys special status in
society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the court. They
owe a duty to their clients. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus
disrupt court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy.

2.1. Jurisdiction of court via- a- vis apperance before court -

The right of appearance in courts is still within the control and jurisdiction of courts. Section 30
of the Advocates Act has not been brought into force and rightly so. Control of conduct in court
can only be within the domain of courts.

Article 145 of the Constitution of India gives to the Supreme Court and Section 34 of the
Advocates Act gives to the High Court power to frame rules including rules regarding condition
on which a person (including an advocate) can practise in the Supreme Court and/or in the High
Court and courts subordinate thereto. Many courts have framed rules in this behalf. Such a rule
would be valid and binding on all. Let the Bar take note that unless self-restraint is exercised,
courts can consider framing specific rules debarring advocates guilty of contempt and/or
unprofessional or unbecoming conduct, from appearing before the courts.

Such a rule if framed would not have anything to do with the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar
Councils. It would be concerning the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts. Apart from

4
(2006) 9 SCC 295.
5
Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v Subhash Kapoor, (2001) 1 SCC 118 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 3 2001 SCC (L&S) 152.
appearing in the courts he can be consulted by his clients, he can give his legal opinion whenever
sought for, he can draft instruments, pleadings, affidavits or any other documents, he can
participate in any conference involving legal discussions, he can work in any office or firm as a
legal officer, he can appear for clients before an arbitrator or arbitrators etc. Such a rule would
have nothing to do with all the acts done by an advocate during his practice. He may even file
vakalat on behalf of a client even though his appearance inside the court is not permitted.
Conduct in court is a matter concerning the court and hence the Bar Council cannot claim that
what should happen inside the court could also be regulated by them in exercise of their
disciplinary powers. The right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the
court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power. A rule can stipulate that a
person who has committed contempt of court or has behaved unprofessionally and in an
unbecoming manner will not have the right to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in
courts.

2.2. Appearance of contemptuous, contumacious lawyer can erode the dignity of court-
The very sight of an advocate, who is guilty of contempt of court or of unbecoming or
unprofessional conduct, standing in the court would erode the dignity of the court and even
corrode its majesty besides impairing the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the
institution of the courts.

2.3 Distinction between power of court to regulate appearance before court and bar council to
frame rules via-a – vis conduct of lawyer-
The power to frame such rules should not be confused with the right to practise law. While the
Bar Council can exercise control over the latter, the courts are in control of the former. This
distinction is clearly brought out by the difference in language in Section 49 of the Advocates
Act on the one hand and Article 145 of the Constitution of India and Section 34(1) of the
Advocates Act on the other. Section 49 merely empowers the Bar Council to frame rules laying
down conditions subject to which an advocate shall have a right to practise i.e. do all the other
acts set out above. However, Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme
Court to make rules for regulating this practice and procedure of the court including inter alia
rules as to persons practising before this Court. Similarly Section 34 of the Advocates Act
empowers High Courts to frame rules, interalia to lay down conditions on which an advocate
shall be permitted to practise in courts.
Article 145 of the Constitution of India and Section 34 of the Advocates Act clearly show that
there is no absolute right to an advocate to appear in a court. An advocate appears in a court
subject to such conditions as are laid down by the court. It must be remembered that Section 30
has not been brought into force, and this also shows that there is no absolute right to appear in a
court. Even if Section 30 were to be brought into force control of proceedings in court will
always remain with the court. Thus even then the right to appear in court will be subject to
complying with conditions laid down by courts just as practice outside courts would be subject to
conditions laid down by Bar Council of India. There is thus no conflict or clash between other
provisions of the Advocates Act on the one hand and Section 34 or Article 145 of the
Constitution of India on the other.

2.4 Lawyers indulgement in strike – rarest of rare cases-

It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the
Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest, abstention
from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the court to decide
whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the
Bench.

In such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge
before advocates decide to absent themselves from court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the
District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that courts are under no
obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike.

On the contrary, it is the duty of all courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the
absence of lawyers. In other words, courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is
held that if a lawyer, holding a vakalat of a client, abstains from attending court due to a strike
call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be in addition to damages which he
might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him.

Krishna Kant Tamrakar v. State of M.P- 20186

6
(2018) 17 SCC 27.
3.1 Lawyers strike hampering the right to speedy justice-
Court that access to speedy justice is a part of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. This Court was of the opinion that one of the reasons/root cause for
delay is uncalled for strikes by the lawyers.

This Court also took note of 266th Law Commission Report that amounts to contempt and at
least the office bearers of the Associations who give call for the strikes cannot disown their
liability for contempt.7

When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social
objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where
constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods.8

The Commission is of the view that unless there are compelling circumstances and the approval
for a symbolic strike of one day is obtained from the Bar Council concerned, the advocates shall
not resort to strike or abstention from the court work. The Law Commission noted that the strikes
were continuing and causing great obstruction to the access to justice.

7
In the State of Uttarakhand, the information sent by the High Court for the years 2012-2016 shows that in
Dehradun District, the advocates were on strike for 455 days during 2012- 2016 (on an average, 91 days per year).
In Haridwar District, 515 days (103 days a year) were wasted on account of strike.
7.3. In the case of the State of Rajasthan, the High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur saw 142 days of strike during 2012
8
7.4. The case of Uttar Pradesh appears to be the worst. The figures of strike for the years 2011-2016 in the
subordinate courts are alarmingly high. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the District Courts have to work for 265 days
in a year. The period of strike in five years period in worst affected districts has been as Muzaffarnagar (791 days),
Faizabad (689 days), Sultanpur (594 days), Varanasi (547 days), Chandauli (529 days),
Ambedkar Nagar (511 days), Saharanpur (506 days) and Jaunpur (510 days). The average number of days of strike
in eight worst affected districts comes to 115 days a year. Thus, it is evident that the courts referred to hereinabove
could work on an average for 150 days only in a year.
7.5. In this regard, the situation in subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu had by no means, been better. The High Court
of Tamil Nadu has reported that there are 220 working days in a year for the courts in the State. During the period
2011-2016, districts like Kancheepuram, 687 days (137.4 days per year); Kanyakumari, 585 days (117 days per
year); Madurai, 577 days (115.4 days per year); Cuddalore, 461 days (92.2 days per
year); and Sivagangai, 408 days (81.6 days per year), were the most affected by strike called by advocates.
7.6. As per the responses received from the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Odisha, the picture does not
emerge to be satisfactory.
7.7. The Commission noted that the strike by advocates or their abstinence from the court were hardly for any
justifiable reasons. It could not find any convincing reasons for which the advocates resorted to strike or boycott of
work in the courts. The reasons for strike call or abstinence from work varied from local, national to international
issues, having no relevance to the working of the courts. To mention a few, bomb blast in Pakistan school,
amendments to Sri Lanka's Constitution, inter-State river water disputes, attack on/murder of advocate, earthquake
in Nepal, to condole the death of their near relatives, to show solidarity to advocates of other State Bar Associations,
moral support to movements by social activists, heavy rains, or on some religious occasions such as shraadh,
Agrasen Jayanti, etc. or even for kavi sammelan.
3. HUSSAIN V. UNION OF INDIA-2017 9-
Such suspension of work or strikes is clearly illegal and it is high time that the legal fraternity
realises its duty to the society which is the foremost. Condolence references can be once in a
while periodically say once in two/three months and not frequently. Hardship faced by witnesses
if their evidence is not recorded on the day they are summoned or impact of delay on undertrials
in custody on account of such avoidable interruptions of court proceedings is a matter of concern
for any responsible body of professionals and they must take appropriate steps.

4. DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, DEHRADUN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY V ISHWAR

SANDALIYA-2020-
To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Nobody has the right to go on
strike/boycott courts. Even, such a right, if any, cannot affect the rights of others and more
particularly, the right of Speedy Justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

In spite of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal 10, Common Cause,
11 12
A Registered Society and Krishnakant Namrakar and despite the warnings by the courts
time and again, still, in some of the courts, the lawyers go on strikes. It appears that despite the
strong words used by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, criticizing the conduct on the part of
the lawyers to go on strikes, it appears that the message has not reached.

5.1 Bar council needs to rise to the occasion-

Even despite the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 29.09.2002, thereafter, no further
concrete steps are taken even by the Bar Council of India and/or other Bar Councils of the States.
A day has now come for the Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of the States to step in
and to take concrete steps. It is the duty of the Bar Councils to ensure that there is no
unprofessional and unbecoming conduct by any lawyer. As observed by this Court in the case of
Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal13 , the Bar Council of India is enjoined with a duty of laying down the
standards of professional conduct and etiquette for Advocates. It is further observed that this

9
(2017) 5 SCC 702.
10
Supra at 1.
11
Supra at 4.
12
Supra at 6.
13
Supra at 1.
would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that advocates do not behave in an
unprofessional and unbecoming manner.

Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right to the Bar Council of India to give directions to the
State Bar Councils. It is further observed that the Bar Associations may be separate bodies but all
advocates who are members of such associations are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar
Councils and thus the Bar Councils can always control their conduct.

Therefore, taking a serious note of the fact that despite the aforesaid decisions of this Court, still
the lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes, Court took suo moto cognizance and issued notices
to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action
and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the
lawyers within 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, strikes by lawyers are beyond the scope of art 19 of the constitution. There are the
certain profession that should be treated alike as they had a motto to serve the society at large
and legal profession is one of them that needs to work towards providing justice to people
without any delay. The landmark judgment of Ex-Capt.14 Harish case had declared the strikes by
advocates as illegal and only in rare of rarest case lawyers can call for strikes as pointed by the
supreme court in the judgment. The lawyers have the right to demand solutions of their
grievances but not at the cost of their cliente’s right who had to suffer because of such strikes
that lead to the delay in the procedure of giving justice to people.

14
Ibid.