Courts Are Not Industrial Establishments, Bar Can't Bargain Their Demands Like Trade Unions: Allahabad High Court On Lawyers' Strike
Expressing alarm over a petition concerning continuous strike in Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia, the Allahabad High Court remarked,“In our judicial system, strike brings the wheels of justice to a standstill, bringing cheer and happiness amongst enemies of justice. Their whips get thicker, sticks more brutal to deepen bleeding wounds day-by-day, their apathy to listen the...
Expressing alarm over a petition concerning continuous strike in Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia, the Allahabad High Court remarked,
“In our judicial system, strike brings the wheels of justice to a standstill, bringing cheer and happiness amongst enemies of justice. Their whips get thicker, sticks more brutal to deepen bleeding wounds day-by-day, their apathy to listen the cry stronger and their sleep against call for justice turning into a deep slumber, so long as the saviours of justice, i.e. the lawyers and the Judges, do not come for rescue of the victims of injustice.”
The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed courts are not industrial establishments and Bar Associations and Bar Councils are not trade unions which can go on strike bargaining for their demands. The Court observed that the Bar Associations and Bar Councils are well-quipped with legal solutions for their problems.
“If courts of law remain closed for long periods, people may take recourse to other means for redressal of their grievances, including those which may have no sanction of law, like approaching the criminals to settle their disputes, or either turning themselves into criminals and adopting all other polluted means for getting the work done. If this situation persists for a considerable period of time, the resultant effect on the society as well as individuals and the nation as a whole would be unassessable. In that eventuality, we would certainly shatter the faith reposed by us in ourselves while giving us the Constitution and its soul and that would be the most unfortunate day for all of us.”
A writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus for directing authorities to take action against the lawyer and office bearers of the Tehsil Bar Association Rasara, District Ballia who had been on strike since 31st January, 2023. Since the issue affected a large number of people, the Court directed the same to be registered as a public interest litigation.
On 19th January, 2024, the Court was informed that the strike had ended and usual work was being undertaken. Thereafter, the Court directed the President/ Chairman of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to disclose as to what action has been taken in respect of strike by the Tehsil Bar Association Rasara.
Though the Tehsil Bar Association pleaded that they only strike when an advocate dies or the U.P. Bar Council sends request for abstaining from work, however, the Court observed that the petitioner had brought on record evidence disclosing that strikes were called even when any family member of any died or for various other reasons totally unconnected with the profession.
“The situation went to the extent that on 26.12.2023, the Bar Association passed a Resolution that the lawyers were very sad due to death of Ex-Chairman of Samajwadi Party and present District President of Samajwadi Party and abstained from work due to this reason,” observed the Court.
The Court observed that any and all grievances can be raised before the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by the Allahabad High Court by order dated 6th June, 2023 which comprises of: District Judge, Additional District Judge-I, CJM, DGC (Civil & Criminal) and the President, Bar Association of the concerned District.
The Court also referred to the Rules for Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed by the Bar Council of India which describe the status of an Advocate as “an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community and a gentleman.”
Considering the Advocates Act, 1961 and various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the State Bar Council has the power to “remove the concerned advocate/ office bearer from the State Roll of Advocates and to take any other measure(s) prescribed under the law, including against the concerned Bar Association.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the U.P. Bar Council to bring on record any guidelines framed by it regarding observance of condolences and other instances under which the lawyers abstain from work in any district or Tehsil of the State of U.P.
The case is directed to be listed on 5th February, 2024.
Case Title: Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1951 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 53