In a stern rebuke to the practice of lawyer strikes, the Supreme Court on Monday condemned the Faizabad Bar Association for its prolonged abstention from legal duties, marking a significant stance against disruptions within the legal system.
During a heated hearing, justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan addressed the issue head-on as they reviewed the alarming behavior of the Faizabad lawyers, who abstained from work for 66 out of the 134 days between November 2023 and April 2024. “They abstained from work for nearly half of the past six months. How can they still be entitled to hold the license of the bar association?” Justice Kant questioned, underscoring the severe impact of such actions on the justice delivery system.
The bench’s frustration was palpable as they issued a strong warning not only to the Faizabad Bar Association but to all bar councils across the country. They demanded personal affidavits from all office bearers of the Faizabad Bar, asserting that they should never pass any resolution to abstain from work again. “For redressal of any grievance, they shall approach the district judge or the administrative judge of the high court,” the court ordered, setting clear pathways for addressing future grievances without resorting to strikes.
Despite pleas from senior advocate Rakesh Khanna, representing the bar association, the bench declined to grant any relief or stay on the high court’s decision to appoint a panel of lawyers to oversee the bar association’s operations and ensure the elections to its governing council are held by December 2024. Any future call for a strike by the bar body would trigger a suo motu contempt case against the association, further emphasizing the court’s stringent stance.
Highlighting the broader implications of such strikes, the bench noted the hardships faced by litigants and witnesses who often overcome significant financial and logistical barriers, only to be met with non-functioning courts. The judges praised the Supreme Court Bar Association for its professionalism and non-strike policy, holding it up as a model for others.
The Supreme Court, building on its judgment in the Harish Uppal case (2002), reaffirmed that lawyer strikes are illegal and unethical as they obstruct the administration of justice and impede the rights of litigants.
