In a decisive ruling aimed at ensuring the smooth functioning of courts, the Supreme Court of India, on December 20, 2024, barred Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh from engaging in strikes or abstentions from work. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case Faizabad Bar Association vs. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [SLP (C) Nos. 19804-19805/2024], emphasized that the judiciary exists to serve the justice seekers and must not be held hostage by professional disruptions.
Background of the Case
The Faizabad Bar Association was at the center of the controversy over its governance. Allegations of mismanagement led the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, to constitute an Elders Committee to manage its affairs temporarily and organize fresh elections. The elections, held on December 18, 2024, concluded with a new governing body being elected.
However, disputes arose regarding the Elders Committee’s continued authority and the broader governance of Bar Associations, culminating in this appeal before the Supreme Court. The petition also addressed the troubling pattern of Bar Associations endorsing work abstentions and strikes, disrupting judicial proceedings.
Key Legal Issues
1. Governance Post-Election: The court examined whether the Elders Committee, formed under judicial direction, could continue managing the Bar Association for its full two-year term.
2. Strikes and Work Abstentions: The legality and ethical implications of Bar Association strikes were scrutinized, as such disruptions impede access to justice.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Directives
The bench delivered a comprehensive judgment to address the issues, issuing the following directives:
1. Prohibition of Strikes: The court categorically prohibited Bar Associations from passing resolutions endorsing strikes or abstentions from work. The judgment observed, “The judiciary exists to serve justice seekers, and their rights cannot be compromised for professional disputes.”
2. Monitoring by High Court: The Allahabad High Court Chief Justice was directed to form a three-judge committee to monitor Bar Associations’ compliance with these directives. Swift action, including the removal of office bearers, was mandated for non-compliance.
3. Continuation of Elders Committee: Recognizing the Elders Committee’s exemplary work in conducting peaceful elections, the court allowed it to temporarily oversee the Bar Association’s affairs. However, the committee was instructed to seek clarity from the High Court within two weeks regarding its future tenure.
4. Invocation of Article 142: The Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, stating, “Complete justice demands that the rights of justice seekers are protected against any disruption in court functioning.”
Representation and Parties Involved
– Petitioners (Faizabad Bar Association): Represented by Mr. Kumar Murlidhar, Mr. Atul Verma, and Mr. Adarsh Pandey.
– Respondents (Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.): Represented by senior advocates Mr. K. Parameshwar and Mr. Vijay Hansaria, among others.
