UP Lawyers Abstaining From Work To Hold Condolence Meetings To Be Treated As Contempt Of Court: Allahabad HC

The Court, however, clarified that lawyers or their associations may call any condolence meeting only after 3:30 PM.

A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary directed all the District Judges across the state to report any act of strike by the lawyers in their respective courts to the Registrar General of HC along with the name of office bearers of the respective Bar Association which has given a call for strike or the name of lawyers who call such strike so that appropriate proceedings of criminal contempt are instituted against them following the law.

The Court further directed that these directions be circulated to all district courts and displayed on the notice boards of all courts throughout the State to ensure strict compliance.

The Court issued these directions while dealing with a suo moto criminal contempt matter, wherein cognizance was taken on a report received from District Judge Prayagraj indicating that between July 2023 and April 2024, the lawyers in District Court abstained from work or resorted to strike on 127 days out of a total of 218 days.

Observing that as per the Supreme Court judgements, going on strike by lawyers is not only contempt of court but also amounts to professional misconduct, the Court sought suggestions from the Bar Council of India (BCI), UP State Bar Council and Allahabad High Court Bar Association to curb the menace of strikes in district courts of Uttar Pradesh.

Before the HC, the Counsels representing the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh submitted that they opposed the lawyers going on strike and held the direction of the Supreme Court in the highest esteem. The UP-State Bar Council also made submissions on similar lines.

The Court also considered a report by the High Court Registrar General, which indicated that judicial work in the district courts is seriously hampered in the entire state due to advocate strike calls.

“The actual days of working in almost all courts are substantially curtailed thereby causing further strain on the otherwise overburdened courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh,” the Court noted perusing the Registrar General's report.

Against this backdrop, emphasising that it was high time to take adequate measures to strictly comply with the judgments of the Supreme Court banning strikes by the lawyers, in letter and spirit, the Court remarked thus:

“If the courts are not allowed to function at its optimal level on account of frequent call of strikes by lawyers the very edifice on which the entire system rests may crumble. The law on strike has otherwise been settled by the Supreme Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal (supra). The apex body of the advocates at national and state level have resolved to abide by it. There is thus no reason as to why the menace of strike in courts of Uttar Pradesh can continue with impunity. Vested interests or a section of unscrupulous members at the Bar cannot be allowed to violate the law declared by the Supreme Court or the solemn resolutions of the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.”

The Court also stressed that since the people of the State have reposed faith in the Courts to resolve their disputes and protect their valuable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and hence, this faith cannot be allowed to be compromised by a section of irresponsible advocates who place their own interests over and above the interests of the common man.

“If the functioning of district judgeship is allowed to be effected in any manner it would have an adverse cascading effect of grave proportions,” the Court further said.

The Court, however, noted that lawyers sometimes encounter genuine difficulties and hardships, and since even their legitimate grievances are not considered, they are left with no option but to go on strike.

Therefore, the Court opined that it was desirable and in the interest of the smooth running of Courts that a 'Grievance Redressal Committee' be constituted at different levels of the Courts, i.e., the High Court and the District Courts so that genuine grievances of lawyers and litigants are addressed without lawyers being compelled to go on strike.

The Registrar General of the High Court submitted that such a committee had already been constituted at the High Court and district levels.

However, the bench was apprised that at the district level, most problems/issues can be resolved if a representative of the district administration is also associated with the district-level Grievance Redressal Committee.

In this regard, a suggestion was given to include the District Magistrate or his nominee in the Grievance Redressal Committee formed at the district level.

Accepting this suggestion and noting that no one opposed it, the Court requested the Registrar General of the Court to issue necessary directions to all District Judges throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh to include a District Magistrate or his nominee not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate as a member of the Grievance Redressal Committee formed at the district level.

“This would make the Grievance Redressal Committee more effective in dealing with grievance of lawyers and would thereby help in smooth functioning of the courts and facilitate dispensation of justice,” the Court ordered.

The matter will now be heard next on September 25.