Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the District Bar Association, Dehradun, challenging a High Court judgment that directed Bar Associations in Uttarakhand to withdraw their call for a strike and attend courts on all working Saturdays. The High Court had issued these directions in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Ishwar Shandilya, noting that advocates in Dehradun, Haridwar, and Udham Singh Nagar had been boycotting courts on Saturdays for over 35 years, leading to severe obstruction of access to justice and mounting pendency of cases. The High Court also directed the Bar Council of India and the Uttarakhand State Bar Council to take disciplinary action against recalcitrant Bar Associations and office bearers, and directed police protection to ensure smooth functioning of courts. The petitioner argued that the right to strike is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and that Section 48 of the Advocates Act protects acts done in good faith. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott courts, as established in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and other precedents. The Court emphasized that strikes interfere with the administration of justice and that advocates, as officers of the court, have a duty to ensure smooth functioning of courts. The Court also noted that the Bar Councils are duty-bound to take action against unprofessional conduct. The Supreme Court upheld all directions of the High Court and dismissed the SLP, recording the petitioner's statement that the strike had been withdrawn.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Strike - Lawyers have no fundamental right to go on strike or boycott courts under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - The High Court's directions to Bar Associations to withdraw strikes and attend courts on Saturdays are valid and in consonance with Supreme Court precedents (Paras 6-6.1). B) Legal Profession - Professional Conduct - Strike by Advocates - It is unprofessional and unbecoming for a lawyer to refuse to attend court in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott - Advocates are officers of the court and owe a duty to clients and to ensure smooth functioning of courts (Para 6.1). C) Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 48 - Protection for acts done in good faith - Section 48 does not protect illegal strikes or boycotts of courts - The High Court's direction to take disciplinary action against advocates on strike is not contrary to Section 48 (Para 4.2). D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Disciplinary Action - High Court can direct District Judges to report errant advocates for contempt proceedings if they continue strikes (Para 1). E) Legal Profession - Bar Council - Duty to Act - Bar Councils must take disciplinary action against advocates participating in illegal strikes and cannot themselves call for strikes or boycotts (Paras 6.2, 25-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether lawyers have a fundamental right to go on strike or boycott courts under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and whether the High Court's directions to Bar Associations to withdraw strikes and to take disciplinary action are valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding all directions issued by the High Court. The Court recorded the petitioner's statement that the strike had been withdrawn.
Law Points
- Lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott courts
- Strikes interfere with administration of justice and access to justice
- Bar Councils must take disciplinary action against advocates participating in strikes
- High Court can direct police protection to ensure court functioning
- Section 48 of Advocates Act does not protect illegal strikes
