Supreme Court Cracks Whip On Advocates' Strikes; Asks Bar Council Of India To Give Details Of Action Taken Against Bar Associations For Court Boycotts

“BCI to also file affidavit within 2 weeks setting forth where any Bar Association has called for strike in the last one year and what action has been taken.”

A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a contempt petition filed by Common Cause inter-alia alleging that the BCI is not taking steps to prevent advocate’s strikes and is not looking effectively into its disciplinary control side.

Previously, the Supreme Court pulled up the BCI for not coming up with any ‘concrete’ plans for preventing State Bar Associations from going on strikes and abstaining from court work. Thereafter the BCI assured the Apex Court that steps are being taken to amend the Rules pursuant to the meeting of the representatives of all the State Bar Councils and the decision taken therein.

On Monday, Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing on behalf of Common Cause apprised the Bench, “there is a strike today in Delhi High Court.” The Chairman BCI, Manan Kumar Mishra submitted that the BCI has framed rules relevant to the issue involved in the present petition. As the copies of the Rules were handed over on Monday itself, the Bench granted two weeks’ time to the petitioner, Common Cause, to examine the same and come up with suggestions. However, quickly reading through the rules handed over to him, Bhushan stated that “These Rules are not going to have any effect. These are absolutely useless”.

Justice Kaul remarked that everytime matters pertaining to advocate’s strike approach the Apex Court, it has to intervene, and pass orders to resolve the same. He referred to the Advocate’s strike last year in Odisha that went awry with advocates indulging in violence. In November, 2022, a bench led by Justice Kaul had expressed that it expected the BCI to suspend the licenses of the lawyers who have been striking in Odisha over a long-standing demand for a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court in the western part of the state, at Sambalpur. In December, 2022, the Court observed that the BCI, being a major body, has to come up with propositions to handle situations regarding advocates agitating and going on strikes.

The Judge added, “here the issue is that the Courts’ working should not be impeded”.

It was put to the Bench that lawyers do have a right to protest for a reasonable cause. In this regard, Justice Kaul said, “These are all professionals. Why does this not happen in the Supreme Court? Because there is a thought process that the working of the court should not be disrupted.”

He orally observed that the Bar Association may pass resolutions if they are displeased with some decision, but stalling the work of the Courts is not acceptable. Justice Kaul reckoned, “As a method of protest, the Courts of justice cannot be stopped. You people are not getting dates because of the volume. When abstinence of work takes place, it is very difficult for Courts to accommodate. This is a practical problem”.

In April, the Supreme Court had directed the High Courts to constitute grievance committees where lawyers can ventilate their concerns instead of resorting to court boycotts.

[Case Title: Common Cause v. Abhijat And Or. Conmt Petition(C) No. 550/2015 in WP(C) No. 821/1990]

Click Here To Read/Download Order