A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed grave concern over the actions of the Faizabad lawyers, questioning whether they had any right to retain their bar licenses. The court warned the bar association and all bar councils across the country, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday(2nd Sept) issued a stern rebuke against lawyers engaging in strikes, stating that such actions undermine the justice delivery system and deeming those who participate in them as unfit to remain in the legal profession.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed grave concern over the actions of the Faizabad lawyers, questioning whether they had any right to retain their bar licenses. The court warned the bar association and all bar councils across the country, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation.
This strong stance was taken while the court reviewed the conduct of the Faizabad Bar Association, which abstained from work for 66 out of 134 days between November 2023 and April 2024.
“They were absent from work for 66 out of 134 days. Do they still deserve to hold the bar association’s license? They need to remember they are part of the system and are attempting to intimidate the high court and the district judge… We are issuing a warning to them and all bar councils nationwide. Consider this a formal notice,” stated the bench, underscoring the seriousness of the issue.
Senior advocate Rakesh Khanna, representing the bar association, argued that the lawyers were not on strike, but the bench was not persuaded and demanded strict actions. The bench ordered the bar association to secure undertakings from all its members, pledging they would never strike again.
Nevertheless, the bench demanded strict measures.
“We require personal affidavits from all your office bearers,” the bench instructed Khanna.
The court further instructed that all office bearers file affidavits with the district judge, high court, and Supreme Court, committing never to pass resolutions for abstaining from work. It also refused to grant a stay on the high court’s order, which set up a panel of lawyers to take over the bar association’s affairs and hold elections by December 2024, warning that any further strike action would result in a contempt case against the association.
The bench highlighted the detrimental impact of such strikes on the justice system, particularly on litigants and witnesses who face financial and logistical challenges, only to find the courts non-functional due to lawyer strikes.
“Once the undertaking from all members is obtained, each office bearer must file an affidavit with the district judge, high court, and Supreme Court, pledging not to pass any resolution for abstaining from work. Any grievances should be addressed to the district judge or the administrative judge of the high court,”
the order stated.
The bench rejected Khanna’s request for a stay on the high court’s order, which established a panel to oversee the bar association’s operations and mandated elections to the governing council by December 2024. The high court also warned that any future strike by the bar body would result in a suo motu contempt case against the association.
“We will not stay the high court’s order. The high court has formed a committee and we will not permit you to operate in the interim. Your actions have been extremely troubling and unacceptable. Granting a stay would undermine the high court and the district judiciary. The high court has shown considerable restraint despite the bar association’s conduct,”
the bench emphasized.
Praising the professionalism of the Supreme Court Bar Association, which has never resorted to strikes, the court questioned the fitness of lawyers who engage in such disruptive activities to continue in the legal profession.
The matter will be heard again on September 13.
The court’s position aligns with its long-standing view, dating back to the 2002 Harish Uppal case, that lawyer strikes are illegal and unethical, as they obstruct the administration of justice and violate litigants’ rights to court access.
