Allahabad HC Orders Personal Presence Of UP Bar Council Chairman To Explain Steps Proposed To Prevent Strikes By Lawyers

The Allahabad High Court has sought the personal presence of the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to explain the steps which are proposed to be taken by the Council to prevent frequent Lawyers' Strikes in the future and the action to be taken in such cases.

The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot ordered thus while dealing with a bail plea filed by one Suraj Pasi and after noting that the trial in the matter could not proceed on a number of occasions as the counsels were on strike. 

Recording its displeasure over the frequent strikes by the lawyers thereby hampering the trials, the Court, in its order, sternly observed that the counsels cannot hold the judicial process to ransom by irresponsibly going on strike and bringing the work in the court to a standstill.

"The courts in India have consistently set their face against lawyers striking actions. Often accused persons are in jail, and the trial is hampered because of strike actions by lawyers. Striking actions of lawyers not only interfere with the administration of justice but also in such cases cause flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of accused persons-prisoners' right to speedy trial...The process of law has to run its course unimpeded by any such obstructions. The courts have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law even when the parties or counsels are not cooperating with the trial proceedings. The court proceedings cannot come to a stand still owing to striking lawyers and lethargic litigants."

Further, the Court also took note of the comments sent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad pertaining to the status of the trial in the case at hand, and observed that the strike actions were a regular feature of the concerned court.

Against this backdrop, the Court directed the Trial court concerned to forward the names of the concerned office bearers of the Bar Association who had called and enforced the strikes and prevented the counsels as well as the courts from discharging their judicial work.

The trial Judge concerned has also been asked to indicate that upon due inquiry with the jail authorities as to why the accused persons who were in prison were not produced before the trial court on the appointed date and to give the following details:

A. Names of the accused persons with the respective dates on which they were arrested.

B. Dates on which the accused persons were produced together in the court.

C. Causes for failure to produce the accused persons in court together after they had been arrested, and the action taken by the trial court for such failure of the authorities.

With this, the matter has been posted for further hearing on December 20, 2022, in the list of fresh cases.

Case title - Suraj Pasi v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14553 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order