The Rajasthan High Court addressed the ongoing lawyers’ strike protesting working Saturdays. The Bench emphasized that lawyers do not have the right to strike or abstain from work, as such actions put undue pressure on litigants.
The Rajasthan High Court addressed the ongoing lawyers’ strike protesting the designation of working Saturdays, emphasizing that lawyers do not have the right to strike or abstain from work, as such actions place undue pressure on litigants.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over a case regarding a suspension of sentence application without legal representation, highlighted that court proceedings must continue especially in cases involving individuals’ personal liberty who are incarcerated.
The Court noted that three Bar Associations, including two at the Principal Seat in Jodhpur and one in Jaipur, passed resolutions to stop work in opposition to a Full Court decision mandating that two Saturdays each month be designated as working days.
Justice Dhand emphasized that despite a clarification published in the cause-list on January 23, 2026, stating that lawyers’ presence on those Saturdays would not be mandatory and that only old pending cases would be addressed voluntarily, the boycott persisted.
Referencing the Supreme Court’s significant ruling in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Another (2003), the Court reiterated that,
“lawyers have no right to go on strike; or give a call for boycott; or not even a token strike.”
Justice Dhand remarked that when lawyers refuse to participate in court proceedings, it jeopardizes the right to swift justice for litigants, which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court also mentioned legislative efforts aimed at preventing such disruptions, indicating that “an amendment has also been proposed in the Advocates’ Amendment Bill, 2025, which prohibits lawyers from boycotting or abstaining from Court’s work.”
While recognizing the right to dissent and protest as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that this right is not absolute. It should be exercised peacefully and without causing public disorder or obstructing the pursuit of justice.
The Bench stated,
“The right to protest must be balanced with the rights of other citizens such as right to life and personal liberty,”
These strong observations arose during the hearing of Rajesh Kushwah’s application, an NDPS convict serving a ten-year sentence. Although the High Court had suspended his sentence on October 7, 2025, Kushwah remained in custody as he could not pay the required fine of Rs. 1 Lakh due to financial constraints.
Determining that the strike should not affect the petitioner’s liberty, the Court opted to rule on the merit of the case. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Sirpal (2024), the Court ruled that imposing an unfeasible condition on a poor accused undermines the right of appeal and violates Article 21.
The Court stated,
“Poverty and penalty should not hinder an accused persons’ right of life and personal liberty… If the applicant, in the present case, is not in a position to arrange the fine amount… it clearly amounts to violation of his personal right of life and liberty,”
The Court acknowledged the fine deposit requirement and ordered the immediate release of the appellant. Importantly, Justice Dhand concluded by instructing that a copy of the order be sent to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Rajasthan for necessary action.