Advocates' Strikes | BCI Agrees Before Supreme Court To Suggest Nature Of Grievances Which Redressal Committees Can Consider

A Bench of MR Shah and CT Ravikumar pointed to the recent strike in Rajasthan after an advocate was murdered.

“Where is the grievance committee for Rajasthan? An advocate was murdered. We don’t know for what reason but since then, advocates have been on a strike.”

The Bench further said that advocates could go on strikes for various reasons. It added that the Court have asked advocates to refrain from going on strikes multiple times but to no avail.

“This has already been stated by this Court at least10 times; not to go strike”, the Court remarked while adding that the committees were for the individual High Courts to consider.

The Bench then questioned Sharma on the range of grievances the committees would possibly look into.

“Too vague. What type of grievances? Any and all disputes can't be considered by the committee. You can come up with Draft Rules. To suggest a remedy it must be workable, no?”

Sharma agreed to come up with Draft Rules regarding the subject on April 17, the next date of hearing.

“Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate and Chairman, Bar Council of India, has stated at the Bar that the Bar Council of India will suggest the nature of the grievances, which may be considered by the Grievance Redressal Committee, which may be constituted by the concerned High Courts”, the Court’s order recorded.

On February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court, taking a serious note of the fact that despite consistent decisions of the Court, the lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes, had taken suo moto cognisance and issued notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers.

The suo motu action of the Court came while dismissing an appeal filed by the District Bar Association Dehradun against a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which declared the lawyers' strikes illegal.

In that judgement, a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah categorically had held that boycott of courts by advocates was illegal, and cannot be justified as an exercise of right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Case Title: District Bar Association Dehradun Versus Ishwar Shandilya And Ors | Ma 859/2020 In Slp(C) No. 5440/2020 X

Click Here To Read/Download Order