Today, On 28th June, The West Bengal Bar Council declared July 1 as a ‘black day’ in protest against three new criminal laws set to take effect on that date. These laws are the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita. The council’s protest reflects concerns over the implications of these legal changes.
Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court determined that no one can be forced to observe a strike or stop working, following a writ petition challenging the Bar Council of West Bengal‘s resolution to strike on July 1 against three new criminal laws.
The Bar Council unanimously passed a resolution declaring July 1, 2024, a ‘Black Day’ in protest against the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, urging a boycott of all courts on that day.
Read Also: Protest Against New Criminal Laws| West Bengal Bar Council Declares July 1 as ‘Black Day’
Justice Shampa Sarkar stated,
“It is a settled position of law that no one can be compelled to observe a strike or cease work. Lawyers discharge public function for the litigants. Thus, this resolution of the Bar Council of West Bengal shall not be treated as a mandate on the learned advocates to abstain from work. Willing advocates are entitled to appear before the Courts all over West Bengal and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. No coercive measures or disciplinary action or any action shall be taken against such advocates who wish to espouse the cause of their clients and who appear for the interest of their clients. The rallies which have been asked to be organized are in the nature of request to the Bar Association, this cannot be treated as a mandate.”
According to the Court, the Bar Council‘s call for rallies is a request, not an obligation.
Advocate Lokenath Chatterjee represented the petitioner, Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, while Senior Advocate Saptangshu Basu represented the Bar Council in the case. Bhattacharjee argued that the Bar Council of West Bengal lacked the authority to initiate such a strike. In contrast, the Bar Council argued that since their authority to call for strikes and organize rallies was being contested, they should be allowed to submit their affidavit-in-opposition.
The petition stated,
“The petitioner contends that the decision and directions of the Bar Council of West Bengal are in direct violation of several rulings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, which have consistently held that strikes by advocates are illegal and unjustified. Advocates have no right to go on strike or call for a boycott, not even for a token strike. The petitioner argues that the Bar Council of West Bengal’s call for abstention from work will cause immense hardship and inconvenience to the litigant public, for whom access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
After their meeting, the Bar Council of West Bengal issued a statement vehemently opposing the new laws, calling them “anti-people acts, undemocratic, and draconian.” They argued that these laws would impose significant hardships on the public and highlighted concerns that these laws threaten fundamental rights and due process. The Council pointed out that the laws might replace longstanding legal frameworks like the Indian Penal Code, the Evidence Act, and the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Bar Council of India (BCI), in a resolution passed on June 26, 2024, recognized many representations protesting these laws. The BCI indicated that unless these laws were suspended and subjected to nationwide discussions and a parliamentary review, there could be indefinite agitations and protests. However, two members of the Bar Council disagreed with the use of the term “unanimous“ in the resolution, stating they opposed it.
Moreover, the BCI called on Bar Associations and Senior Advocates to pinpoint and submit provisions of the new laws that they believe are unconstitutional or detrimental. This initiative aims to promote a productive discussion with the government, in line with assurances made by the Union Home Minister at the International Lawyers’ Conference in September 2023, indicating the government’s willingness to consider amendments based on valid feedback and suggestions. As a result, the Court ordered the Respondent to file an affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks and scheduled the next hearing for a later date.
Read Also: “Justice Over Punishment”: President Droupadi Murmu on New Criminal Laws
The petitioner represented by Advocates Lokenath Chatterjee, Kaustav Ch. Das, Gouranga Ch. Das, Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Rajen Banerjee, Sukanta Ghosh, Rini Bhattacharyya, Tiyasa Biswas, Mary Dutta, Atanu Basu, Madhu Jana, Arghya Chatterjee, Sagnik Roy Chowdhury, Shilpa Thapa, and Aishwarya Rajyashree.
The respondents represented by Senior Advocate Saptangshu Basu, along with Advocates Pantu Deb Roy, Lalit Mohoto, Achinta Banerjee, Ananta Shaw, Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Biswa Brata Basu Mulick, Sanjay Bardhan, Sabnam De Bardhan, Souvik Ganguly, and Tarun Chatterjee.