'Lawyers' Strike Gross Contempt' : Supreme Court Comes Down On Faizabad Bar Association Over Resolutions To Abstain From Work

Expressing serious displeasure at the Faizabad District Association, Uttar Pradesh for allegedly calling strikes and abstaining from judicial work, the Supreme Court yesterday called on its officer bearers to file an affidavit, undertaking that they shall never pass any such resolution in future.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the Association's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment, whereby an Elders Committee was constituted to take over its affairs and ensure that the elections to its Governing Council were held by December 2024.

After hearing the submissions, the Court ordered:

"...every office bearer of the petitioner – Bar Association will file an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the District Judge, High Court and this Court that they shall never ever pass any resolution for abstaining from work and if there is any grievance of the Members of the Bar Association, they shall approach the District Judge or if need be the Administrative Judge/portfolio Judge of the High Court, for redressal of their grievances".

Initially, the Court orally called for the affidavits of all members of the Bar Association, so it can initiate contempt action against them and suspend their licenses. However, at Senior Advocate Rakesh Kumar Khanna's request (on behalf of the petitioner-Association), the scope of the order was restricted to the office bearers at this stage.

It was added that "gross contempt" had been attributed to the petitioner-Association, on which there was a firm finding by the High Court. As such, it must first purge itself of the same.

This view of the matter was taken as the concerned lawyers in Faizabad were stated to have abstained from judicial work for 66 days out of a total of 134 working days from November 2023 to April 2024. Referring to the same, Justice Kant asked Khanna, "Do you think they should be allowed to have a license of the Bar Council?".

In defence, the senior counsel stated on instructions that due to the Ayodhya Mandir movement, there was a district Circular to close the courts. However, Justice Kant was quick to point out that no such plea was taken before the Allahabad High Court.

Emphasizing that the lawyers in question are part of the system, the judge added, "they will realize that we know how to deal with them. This is a very serious matter. This mockery of the system we will not allow to happen. Whatever harsh action we are required to take, we will do that. We will not hesitate, we are not reluctant".

Further, Justice Kant observed that even after orders were reserved by the High Court, the President and General Secretary of the earlier Governing Council of the petitioner-Association passed resolutions for abstaining from judicial work, and such resolutions were passed even on the date of pronouncement of judgment.

"Very very alarming condition! Are they trying to browbeat the High Court? We are inclined to take a very harsh action against them, we are warning them. And every District Bar Association indulging in this kind of...", the judge remarked.

Justice Kant also expressed that the Court will not hear the petition (or any other petition filed by the lawyers in question) until they file an affidavit before the District Judge that they would never sign any resolution for abstaining from work.

Khanna, on the other hand, sought time to place on record an affidavit containing the district judge's report that there was no strike.

Notably, a request to stay the High Court judgment was declined. "We will not stay...The Elders Committee has already been asked, the election is to be held before December. You go and participate in the election" said Justice Kant. When Khanna emphasized that Bar Associations continue even when Elders Committee is constituted, the judge added that other aspects will be considered only after the court is satisfied with the petitioner's conduct.

The interim order was also refused on the view that it would amount to demoralizing judicial institutions. "It will demoralize the District Judiciary, it will demoralize the High Court, which has taken so much [strain] in passing a very, very fair and reasonably bold order. The High Court could take very harsh action, but it maintained a very balanced approach. Otherwise the conduct that is exhibited...there is something very serious", said Kant J.

Before parting, dismay was conveyed by the Court over the UP Bar Council not doing anything in the matter. Additionally, Justice Kant underlined the grievances that people coming from rural areas for litigation may face when they find out that their lawyer is abstaining from work under a resolution.

Distinguishing the petitioner-Association from the Supreme Court Bar Association, Kant J also remarked that the latter is the only Bar with a ray of hope, that has never done or supported such a thing.

CASE TITLE: FAIZABAD BAR ASSOCIATION Versus BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order