The Allahabad High Court, in a landmark judgment, has issued stern directives to curtail the persistent strikes by lawyers in district courts across Uttar Pradesh. The court declared that any act of striking by lawyers or calls for strikes would be treated as ex facie acts of criminal contempt. The judgment emphasizes the need for the smooth functioning of the judiciary and addresses the severe impact of frequent strikes on the administration of justice.
Background of the Case:
The contempt proceedings arose from a report by the District Judge of Prayagraj, revealing that between July 2023 and April 2024, lawyers in the Prayagraj District Court abstained from work on 127 out of 218 working days, leading to a significant disruption in judicial activities. Cognizance of the matter was taken by the High Court, resulting in the initiation of Criminal Contempt Application No. 12 of 2024. The court, led by Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gautam Chowdhary, examined the extensive impact of these strikes on the administration of justice.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the legitimacy of lawyers going on strike, especially in light of established Supreme Court rulings that categorically state that lawyers have no right to strike. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Ex. Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (1998), which held that such strikes constitute contempt of court and professional misconduct.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
The court took a firm stance against the continuation of strikes, highlighting the detrimental effect on the justice delivery system in Uttar Pradesh. It issued several key directives:
1. Criminal Contempt for Strikes: Any act of individual lawyers or their associations to strike or call for strikes will be treated as an act of criminal contempt.
2. Mandatory Reporting: District Judges are required to report any strikes to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court, including the names of office bearers or lawyers responsible, to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings.
3. Grievance Redressal Committees: The court emphasized the need for Grievance Redressal Committees at both the High Court and District Court levels to address the genuine grievances of lawyers without resorting to strikes.
4. Condolence Meetings: The court directed that condolence meetings in case of a lawyer’s or court officer’s death should only be held after 3:30 PM, ensuring that court work is not hampered.
Also Read
The court underscored the gravity of the situation, stating, “If the courts are not allowed to function at their optimal level on account of frequent strikes by lawyers, the very edifice on which the entire system rests may crumble.”
