Allahabad High Court Criticizes Lawyers’ Strike: Courts Serve Justice, Not Just Lawyers’ Livelihood
The Allahabad High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the ongoing lawyers’ strike in the state, which began on August 30 in response to a police lathi charge incident involving advocates in Hapur district.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra emphasized that the primary objective of the judicial system is not merely to offer a source of income for lawyers or to ensure judges meet a monthly case disposal target. The core purpose is to address the concerns and issues of litigants. The Court remarked,
“Cases are not disposable commodities to be treated as mere statistics. Their purpose is not to provide a livelihood for lawyers or provide monthly disposal quota to Judges. Each case that comes before a Judge, has an element of a human problem concerning the life, liberty, livelihood, family business, profession, work, shelter, safety, and security of the citizen. Many of the litigants belong to the downtrodden and weaker sections of society who are defenceless, poor, and ignorant.”
The Court further highlighted that the grievances of lawyers should not overshadow the distress and suffering of litigants who have placed their trust in the justice system. The Court observed,
“Their silent cry for a civilized human solution to their grievances and problems, and for a level playing field is a call for justice, to be felt and heard not only by the Judges but also by the lawyers, the latter, unfortunately, not hearing this cry, whatever may be the reason which, certainly, cannot have more weight than the weight of tears and pain of litigant(s) who have reposed all faith in our judicial system and the institution of justice.”
The Court’s comments came during a hearing where, despite permitting lawyers to present arguments via video conference, none appeared. The Court noted,
“This Court, through Registrar General, had issued due communication yesterday on September 11 that arguments through video conferencing/ virtual mode would be permissible today onwards. Neither any learned counsel has physically appeared to argue the matter nor has any request for entertaining the present petition through video conferencing mode been sent to this Court.”
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that despite its proactive measures in the suo motu plea, lawyers continued to abstain from their duties, leading to a growing backlog of cases. The Court stated,
“Considering the ongoing strike of lawyers for the last several days, despite positive intervention made by this Court on the judicial side on the request of Bar Association as well as Bar Council of U.P. itself in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2099 of 2023 (In Re v. Bar Council of U.P.) (Suo Moto), simply passing over this case would add burden to this Court and it would not be possible to cope up with the situation as the list of fresh cases is getting lengthy day-by-day.”
To ensure that litigants aren’t unfairly impacted by the lawyers’ non-cooperation, the Court decided to adjourn the matter, which will be revisited on September 26. Advocate Vivek Sharma represented the petitioner, while Advocates Dhananjay Awasthi and Pratik Chandra stood for the Union of India.