The High Court, led by Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chowdhary, reviewed the significant impact of these strikes on justice delivery.
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has issued stringent measures to address the ongoing strikes by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh district courts. The court ruled that any lawyer participating in or calling for strikes would be deemed to be in criminal contempt of court.
The contempt proceedings were initiated following a report from the District Judge of Prayagraj, which revealed that lawyers in the Prayagraj District Court had been on strike for 127 out of 218 working days between July 2023 and April 2024. This led to substantial interruptions in judicial proceedings.
The High Court, led by Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chowdhary, reviewed the significant impact of these strikes on justice delivery.
The key legal issue was whether lawyers have the right to strike, in light of established Supreme Court rulings that explicitly prohibit such actions. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Ex. Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (1995), which classify such strikes as contempt of court and professional misconduct.
READ ALSO: [Lawyer’s Strike] SC To Consider MP Bar Council Leaders’ Contempt Plea
Court’s Decision and Directives:
- Criminal Contempt for Strikes: The court decreed that any lawyer or lawyer association engaging in or calling for strikes would face charges of criminal contempt.
- Mandatory Reporting: District Judges must report any strikes to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court, including the names of those responsible, to facilitate appropriate contempt actions.
- Grievance Redressal Committees: The court mandated the establishment of Grievance Redressal Committees at both the High Court and District Court levels to resolve lawyers’ grievances without resorting to strikes.
- Condolence Meetings: Condolence meetings for deceased lawyers or court officers should be scheduled only after 3:30 PM to prevent disruption of court proceedings.
The court highlighted the critical nature of the issue, stating, “Frequent strikes by lawyers undermine the very foundation of the judicial system, potentially leading to its collapse.”
The Court emphasized that the rule of law cannot be upheld without ensuring the smooth and effective operation of courts.
“If courts are prevented from functioning optimally due to frequent lawyer strikes, the very foundation of the judicial system could collapse,”
the bench stated.
The Court took action after receiving a report from the District Judge of Prayagraj, revealing that judicial work was disrupted on 127 out of 218 working days between July 2023 and April 2024 due to lawyer strikes.
The High Court Registrar General’s report disclosed that district courts across Uttar Pradesh are severely affected by advocates’ strike calls.
“The actual number of working days in nearly all courts has been significantly reduced, adding further pressure to the already overburdened court system in Uttar Pradesh,”
the bench observed.
Acknowledging a Supreme Court ruling that lawyers do not have the right to strike, the Court asked the Bar Council of India (BCI), the UP Bar Council, and the High Court Bar Association to help develop a mechanism to address the issue of strikes in Uttar Pradesh district courts.
A report from the High Court Registrar General showed that strikes by advocates have significantly hampered judicial work across Uttar Pradesh, further straining the already burdened courts.
Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and Senior Counsel RK Ojha, representing the UP Bar Council, expressed their opposition to lawyer strikes and support for the Supreme Court’s stance on the issue. The UP Bar Council confirmed it had passed a resolution urging lawyers to avoid strikes, including during condolence periods.
The Court stated that it is time to implement strict measures to enforce the ban on lawyers’ strikes:
“Citizens of this State trust the Courts to resolve disputes and uphold their constitutional rights. This trust cannot be undermined by a few irresponsible advocates prioritizing their own interests over those of the public. Any disruption in the functioning of district courts could have severe, far-reaching consequences.”
However, the Court also acknowledged that lawyers often face genuine difficulties and hardships, which sometimes lead to strikes. To address this, the Court proposed forming a grievance redressal committee at both the High Court and district court levels to resolve legitimate issues without resorting to strikes.
The Court was informed that such committees already exist but agreed to include the District Magistrate or their nominee in these committees to enhance their effectiveness.
The Court directed the Registrar General to issue instructions to all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh to include the District Magistrate or a nominee of at least Additional District Magistrate rank in the grievance redressal committees.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on September 25.
Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra represented the Court, with Senior Counsel Manan Kumar Mishra and advocate Sai Girdhar representing the BCI, and Senior Counsel RK Ojha and advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari appearing for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the District Bar Association of Prayagraj, respectively.
