The Supreme Court Today (Nov 29) expressed its exasperation with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association over its boycotts from court work, lamenting that lawyers cannot hold litigants to ransom in this manner. A Bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih added that there were other means of registering protest instead of declaring strikes or bringing court work to a halt.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticized the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association for disrupting court proceedings through its recurring strikes, emphasizing that such actions are detrimental to litigants.
The apex court highlighted the impact of these boycotts, expressing its dismay over the lawyers’ behavior.
SC Highlights Constitutional Duty of Lawyers
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that lawyers should explore alternative means of protest rather than paralyzing court work. Justice Oka remarked:
“You are holding the litigants at ransom. What is the fault of 10,000 litigants? You cannot hold litigants to ransom. It is 75 years of the Constitution. Some day you will be responsible for this.”
The court expressed concern about the scale of disruption caused by such strikes, noting that daily cause lists typically contain thousands of cases. Justice Oka referred to historical examples where strikes had been addressed decisively:
“Every day, the cause list shows 4,000 to 5,000 matters. As per Dr Ambedkar, there are other means of protest. Bar associations elsewhere have taken up great causes. In Mumbai, when a strike was there in a court, we transferred all cases and the strike ended. In Odisha (when a similar situation arose), suspension was directed. This is very unfortunate.”
Litigants’ Rights Affected by Strikes
The case that brought this issue into focus involved an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court interpreting the phrases “material in possession“ and “reason to believe“ under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
On July 26, the High Court issued an adverse ruling against a litigant whose lawyer failed to appear due to a strike called by the Bar Association. This prompted the litigant to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
The apex court took a stern view of the disruption, issuing notice in August to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, demanding an explanation as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against its office-bearers.
Reminder of Professional and Constitutional Duties
During the hearing, the Supreme Court reminded lawyers of their fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution and act responsibly. Justice Oka stated:
“What is the fault of 10,000 litigants? You cannot hold litigants to ransom.”
The Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the Bar Association’s reluctance to file an undertaking pledging to avoid future strikes. Justice Oka admonished the association for its uncooperative stance:
“We will take your conduct on record now then. Such evasive answers. We will not hesitate to direct the Bar Council to suspend such members. Come at the end of the board and let us know – will you give the undertaking or not? Please have some senior lawyers educate the bar members a bit.”
Undertaking to Avoid Future Strikes
After the Bench’s stern observations, the counsel for the Bar Association assured the court that an undertaking would be submitted. The undertaking was to be signed by the acting president, GS Brar, and the acting joint secretary, Praveen Dahiya.
The court directed that this undertaking be submitted by December 8 and scheduled the next hearing for December 13.
This case underscores the Supreme Court’s firm stance against disruptions in court proceedings caused by lawyers’ strikes.
The Bench’s remarks serve as a reminder of the professional and constitutional responsibilities of legal practitioners, emphasizing that litigants’ rights must not be jeopardized.
The direction to the Punjab and Haryana HC Bar Association to submit an undertaking signals the judiciary’s resolve to prevent such instances in the future.
CASE TITLE:
M/S M3M India Private Limited and anr v. Union of India and Others
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Strikes
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
