Lawyers' Strike and Court Proceedings: Supreme Court Issues Strict Directions on Boycotts

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 28 February 2020, dealt with the issue of lawyers’ strikes and boycotts of court proceedings, particularly focusing on the long-standing practice in the districts of Dehradun, Haridwar, and Udham Singh Nagar in Uttarakhand. The case, brought forth by the District Bar Association of Dehradun, arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ishwar Shandilya, challenging the continuous strikes by lawyers that had severely affected the functioning of the courts.

Background of the Case

The District Bar Associations in the Dehradun, Haridwar, and Udham Singh Nagar districts of Uttarakhand had been organizing strikes and boycotts of courts, particularly on Saturdays, for over 35 years. These strikes were often for reasons such as condolence references or other non-legal matters. As a result, the functioning of the courts was severely hampered, contributing to the mounting backlog of cases and delaying the delivery of justice.

In response, Ishwar Shandilya filed a PIL before the Uttarakhand High Court, seeking immediate cessation of the strikes and the implementation of measures to ensure the smooth functioning of the courts. The High Court, in its judgment on 25 September 2019, issued a series of directions, including the requirement for the District Bar Associations to immediately withdraw their call for strikes and boycott, and for the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to take action against errant Bar Associations and advocates.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the District Bar Association of Dehradun filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, arguing that the right to strike was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (District Bar Association of Dehradun) Argued:

The right to go on strike or boycott court proceedings is a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The strike is a form of peaceful representation for the grievances of the lawyers’ community, as there is no other platform available for such expression.
The High Court’s order violated the protection granted by Section 48 of the Advocates Act, which provides immunity for actions taken in good faith.

Respondent (Ishwar Shandilya) Argued:

The continuous strikes and boycotts by the lawyers were obstructing the access to justice and were contributing to the mounting pendency of cases.
The right to strike cannot be exercised at the cost of the public’s right to speedy justice, which is guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Bar Associations were causing immense harm to the justice delivery system by frequently abstaining from court proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations

1. Lawyers’ Strikes and the Right to Strike

The Supreme Court began by analyzing the issue of lawyers’ strikes and their impact on the functioning of the courts. The Court noted:

“The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) does not entitle lawyers to go on strike or boycott court proceedings, especially when it hampers the functioning of the justice system.”

The Court referred to its earlier rulings, such as Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003), which had specifically stated that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to call for a boycott of courts. The Court emphasized that strikes and boycotts disrupt court proceedings and harm the interests of clients, denying them access to justice.

2. Impact of Strikes on the Administration of Justice

The Court observed that the strikes had a direct and detrimental effect on the timely dispensation of justice. It cited data showing that in Dehradun and Haridwar districts, lawyers were on strike for a significant portion of the year, resulting in an average of 91 to 103 days lost annually in court proceedings. The Court held:

“The strikes by lawyers in these districts contribute directly to the ever-mounting pendency of cases and obstruct the access to justice for the citizens.”

3. Professional Misconduct and Contempt of Court

The Court referred to previous judgments where lawyers’ strikes were viewed as acts of professional misconduct. In Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra), the Court had held that it is unprofessional and unbecoming for lawyers to abstain from attending court due to a call for strike. The Court reiterated:

“An advocate who refuses to attend court in pursuit of a call for strike or boycott is in contempt of court, and their actions interfere with the administration of justice.”

The Court stressed that lawyers, as officers of the court, have an obligation to ensure the smooth functioning of the judiciary and cannot disrupt proceedings under the guise of a strike.

4. Role of Bar Councils and Disciplinary Actions

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Bar Councils in regulating the conduct of lawyers. It noted that the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils have a duty to ensure that lawyers do not engage in unprofessional conduct, including participating in strikes. The Court observed:

“It is the duty of the Bar Council of India to ensure that there is no unprofessional or unbecoming conduct by any lawyer, and it must take disciplinary action against any lawyer who calls for or participates in strikes.”

The Court also pointed out that the Bar Councils should not entertain requisitions for meetings calling for strikes and boycotts, and any such requests should be immediately dismissed.

5. Duty of the Courts

The Supreme Court clarified that courts are not powerless in such situations. The Court emphasized:

“It is the duty of courts to proceed with cases even in the absence of lawyers, and the court should not adjourn matters merely because of strikes or boycotts.”

The Court stressed that the judiciary must continue functioning regardless of strikes and that it is the responsibility of the courts to ensure that justice is delivered promptly.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the petition, ruling that the lawyers in the affected districts must immediately resume attending court proceedings on all working Saturdays and refrain from any further strikes or boycotts. The Court issued the following directions:

The District Bar Associations of Dehradun, Haridwar, and Udham Singh Nagar must comply with the High Court’s order and resume work in courts on all Saturdays.
The Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils must take disciplinary action against any lawyer or Bar Association that continues to engage in strikes or boycotts.
If any lawyer continues to engage in strike or boycott, they will be held in contempt of court and liable for disciplinary action under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the principle that the legal profession must prioritize the interests of the public and the smooth functioning of the justice system over personal or collective grievances. The Supreme Court’s ruling stresses:

The right to strike does not extend to lawyers when it obstructs the administration of justice.
Lawyers are officers of the court and have a professional duty to ensure that court proceedings continue without interruption.
Bar Councils must take strict action against lawyers who engage in unprofessional conduct such as strikes and boycotts.

By issuing these directions, the Supreme Court has ensured that the integrity of the judicial system is upheld and that litigants are not denied access to justice due to lawyers’ strikes.

Petitioner Name: District Bar Association, Dehradun.
Respondent Name: Ishwar Shandilya & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Dehradun, Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar.
Judgment Date: 28-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: District Bar Associa vs Ishwar Shandilya & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-02-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category