There Are Other Ways to Agitate, Don't Hold Litigants to Ransom: Supreme Court On Lawyers' Strike, Raps P&H HC Bar Association

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 29) orally remarked that lawyers' abstaining from court work unfairly harm litigants and there are other powerful methods for lawyers to agitate. The Court was hearing a case concerning members of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association having abstained from court work in July 2024.

“In 75 years of the existence of constitutional courts, someday we will have be answerable for this. In Punjab and Haryana High Court minimum 4 to 5 thousand matters must be there. As per last speech of Babasaheb Ambedkar, there are other ways to protest. There are Bar associations which have really taken up genuine issues considering independence of judiciary and passed strong resolutions that are very effective. What is the fault of the ten thousand litigants who come to court on a particular day? You are holding them at ransom. There are very powerful lawyers' bodies. Various methods to agitate. Don't hold litigants to ransom. This is very unfair”, the Court remarked

A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih pulled up the acting Vice President of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Jasdev Singh Brar over his reluctance to provide an undertaking to refrain from strikes.

In August, the Court had issued a notice seeking an explanation as to why contempt action should not be initiated against the Bar Association for its members' conduct.

Last week, the Court had expressed its intention to initiate contempt action and directed the Vice President and the Joint Secretary of the Bar Association to personally appear before the Court after they showed reluctance to give an undertaking not to indulge in strikes.

During today's hearing, Justice Oka questioned Bar Association Vice President Jasdev Singh Brar on whether the Association would give an undertaking to abide by the law laid down in the case of Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India, which declares lawyers' strikes illegal.

Despite repeated questions, Brar didn't say that he will give an undertaking. Justice Oka remarked, “we don't understand this hesitation to give an undertaking. Even if there is some justification for strike you can first give undertaking and then justify. If you are so adamant we will issue contempt notice.”

The Counsel representing the Bar Association initially requested one week's time. After the Court refused, demanding a statement today, he said that the Bar Association will abide by the law.

However, the Court insisted that the statement has to come from Brar and the office bearers of the Bar Association themselves, and not the counsel representing the Bar Association in Court.

“This man (Brar) is not willing to give answers to the court. He doesn't know ABC of law, he represents the Bar Association. Now he will not give undertaking”, Justice Oka angrily remarked, adding that the Court will ask the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action against him.

The Court allowed Brar to consult the other members of the executive committee and give a statement.

When the matter was taken up again at the end of the list, the Counsel for the Bar Association informed the court the Court that the Association was willing to give an undertaking. Justice Oka remarked that the earlier hesitation on part of Brar was very troubling.

In its order, the bench recorded that the acting Vice President and Joint Secretary of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association had stated on behalf of the Association that they would file an unconditional undertaking to abide by the Supreme Court's law prohibiting strikes. The Court granted them time until December 8 to file the undertaking and scheduled the next hearing for December 13.

Justice Oka criticized the justification provided by the counsel for the Bar Association, which claimed the strike was in protest against provisions of the Rent Control Act transferring powers from rent controllers to executive magistrates.

“What is the fault of the ten thousand litigants who come to court on a particular day? You are holding them to ransom. This is very unfair”, he said.

In August, the Supreme Court had taken cognizance of the Bar Association's actions after noting that lawyers abstained from appearing before the High Court on July 26, 2024, leading to the dismissal of a writ petition. Observing that this conduct was contrary to settled law, the Court issued a notice to the Bar Association, seeking an explanation.

The Supreme Court has consistently condemned strikes by lawyers, emphasizing their detrimental impact on judicial functioning and litigants. In previous cases, the Court has taken strong measures, including issuing contempt notices and directing High Courts to establish grievance redressal cells for advocates to voice their concerns without disrupting court work.

Case no. – MA 2046/2024

Case Title – M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.