The Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval over the recent lawyers’ strike at the Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur bench. This comes in the wake of the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court not holding court on a Tuesday morning, a move perceived as a protest against the High Court Bar Association’s resolution to boycott a sitting judge. The tension between the judges and the bar association originated from an incident involving a lawyer who was purportedly assaulted by his neighbor. The lawyer had filed a petition seeking protection, and members of the bar association insisted that Justice Satish Kumar Sharma hear the matter immediately. However, he declined.
It’s worth noting that in 2021, the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, had tendered an ‘unconditional & unqualified apology’ to the Supreme Court concerning the contempt proceedings initiated against them for boycotting a bench of the High Court as part of a strike. The Association had also committed to refraining from court boycotts in the future. Accepting the apology, a Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna had recorded,
“In view of the above, unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by office bearers of Bar Association and their statement on affidavit that they shall not go on strike on any ground whatsoever in future or pressurise Chief Justice or any other Judge to change roster of particular judge or Bench and no pressure tactic shall be adopted in future and they will resolve their conflicts by lawful methods, we accept unconditional & unqualified apology tendered & we close the contempt proceedings. Contempt notices are discharged.”
The impugned order in the present scenario was passed by the High Court in an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. The High Court permitted the said application without hearing either party due to the non-appearance of counsels, which was deemed illegal and in violation of the Supreme Court’s order in the case of Ex-Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2003. In this case, a three-judge Bench had firmly stated that lawyers do not have the right to strike or call for a boycott. The court had emphasized,
“All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out.”
The Supreme Court has previously issued similar orders in cases related to lawyers’ strikes. For instance, in September, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia issued a notice to a bar association in Odisha for abstaining from court work for a day due to the death of one of its members. The bench remarked,
“unfortunate as the incident may be, this cannot bring judicial working to a standstill.”
In April 2023, the Supreme Court had directed all High Courts to establish grievance redressal cells, enabling advocates to voice their concerns without resorting to strikes.
This ongoing tussle between the judiciary and the bar associations underscores the need for a harmonious relationship to ensure the smooth functioning of the justice system.
