'Specify Proposals To Prohibit Lawyers' Strikes': Allahabad HC To BCI, State Bar Council, HCBA & District Bar Association
The Allahabad High Court has directed key legal bodies, including the Bar Council of India (BCI), State Bar Council, High Court Bar Association (HCBA), and District Bar Association, Prayagraj, to submit their responses outlining specific measures to prevent advocates' strikes.
A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary has asked these bodies to submit detailed proposals outlining mechanisms and policies that ensure strict adherence to the Supreme Court's directives prohibiting strikes by lawyers.
The order has been issued in a matter where the bench issued a notice (in May this year) to the President and Secretary of the District Court Bar Association, Prayagraj, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for "obstructing" the proceedings of the District Court Prayagraj for 127 days between 1 July 2023 and 30 April 2024.
The Court had passed this order in a criminal contempt case registered under the orders of the Chief Justice after receiving a report from the District Judge, Prayagraj, specifying the days worked in the district judgeship at Prayagraj between 1 July 2023 and 30 April 2024.
Hearing the matter on May 31, a division bench noted that the strike figures unequivocally demonstrated that the menace of strike/abstinence from work has “virtually crippled the justice dispensation system at the District Court Prayagraj”.
“Resort to strike as a matter of routine for almost 60% of the working days over a period of 10 months goes to show that the judgeship at Prayagraj is working almost at 40% of its capacity. Incalculable harm is caused to the litigants and the cause of justice. The above figures clearly go to show that functioning of the district court stands substantially paralysed on account of indiscriminate resort to strike by the Lawyers,” the Court noted.
In response to the court's directive, Senior Counsel RK Ojha, representing the President and Secretary of the District Bar Association, Prayagraj, appeared before the Court on July 8 and stated that the Bar Association considers holding strikes impermissible in view of the Supreme Court's orders.
However, it was suggested that a more comprehensive consultation with the Bar Council would be desirable to evolve an effective strategy to eliminate the menace of strikes.
Further, the Court also received a report from the Registrar General of the Court indicating that work was seriously hampered in almost all the districts of Uttar Pradesh due to strikes called by the Advocates during the period in question.
Directing that the report be furnished to the Bar Council of India as well as the State Bar Council, the Court asked the Bar Council of India as well as the State Bar Council and the respective Bar Associations of the High Court Allahabad and the District Bar Association Prayagraj.
All the legal bodies have been asked to file their respective affidavits disclosing how they propose to ensure compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court prohibiting lawyers from holding strikes in their respective Courts.
It may be noted that the law concerning strikes by the lawyers has been settled in a series of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India, including in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (2003), wherein the Top Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or give a call for a strike.
Case title - In Re Vs. District Bar Association Of Prayagraj