Justice Ajit Kumar, while hearing a petition filed by Ashutosh Kumar Pathak, a tenant, stated that no one should be left without a legal remedy due to lawyer strikes. The court further directed that if litigants wish to argue their cases during such strikes, the district administration, in coordination with the district judge, must ensure police protection for them.
Prayagraj: Addressing the issue of frequent strikes in various district courts across Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that judicial officers must continue their duties even during lawyer strikes to ensure litigants are not deprived of justice.
A single bench of Justice Ajit Kumar issued a ruling on a writ petition filed by Ashutosh Kumar Pathak, emphasizing that
“no one can be left without a remedy due to lawyers being on strike. No lawyer can obstruct a judicial officer from performing judicial duties or prevent a litigant from accessing the courts.”
The petitioner had challenged a Nov 8, 2024, order by the prescribed authority, which granted possession in favor of the landlord/respondent. After reviewing the matter, the court noted that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy to file a rent appeal under Section 35 of the UP Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the ongoing lawyers’ strike in Ghaziabad district would hinder access to justice.
READ ALSO: ‘Lawyers Strikes Unacceptable’: Supreme Court Enforces ‘zero tolerance’ Policy
In response, the court remarked,
“It is concerning that litigants are unable to secure justice from courts, despite having statutory remedies, solely because of strikes by lawyers in the district concerned.” The court reiterated that the legal profession is a noble one, and lawyers should never obstruct litigants from seeking justice through the courts.
The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that lawyers in Ghaziabad district were on strike, making it difficult for the petitioner to seek justice.
Reacting to this, Justice Kumar remarked, “It is distressing that litigants are unable to access justice despite statutory remedies and are forced to approach the High Court solely due to lawyer strikes.”
The court also underscored that lawyers, as members of a noble profession, must not prevent litigants from entering courts or judicial officers from performing their duties.
Justice Kumar reiterated, “No lawyer can obstruct a judicial officer from fulfilling their judicial responsibilities, nor can they stop any litigant from seeking justice.”
In its order dated Dec 6, the court dismissed the writ petition and directed that if the petitioner files an appeal before the Rent Tribunal, the judicial officer or presiding judge must proceed with the case, even if the lawyers’ strike persists.
