'striking advocates disrupt Court proceedings' is, of late, a commonplace headline. The last few years have seen a spurt in the number of strikes by lawyers. In 2004, advocates of the Madras Bar went on strike over, ironically, the introduction of a 25-point code of conduct. In 2005, advocates of the Gujarat Bar went on strike over a sting operation conducted by a news channel. The Delhi Bar’s asinine reason for going on strike for a day was to express solidarity with protesting advocates of the Madras High Court.

In 2007, advocates in Uttar Pradesh went on strike to protest the terror strike at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. As a means of presenting a unified stance, lawyers in Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh boycotted courts. Later that year, advocates in Jharkhand went on strike to protest the murder of advocate Sadan Kumar Chatterjee. 2008 saw advocates protesting the suspension of two Senior Counsels by the Delhi High Court with a day-long strike.

Thus far, in 2009, lawyers in Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh have gone on strike for a day in the district courts to protest proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. Later, advocates in Surat boycotted courts to protest the baton charge on advocates, who at the time were protesting the increase in stamp duty.

Advocates of the Madras High Court have been on strike several times this the year for issues ranging from the state of Tamils in Sri Lanka to the proposed amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In June, advocates of the Surat Bar Association went on strike demanding the transfer of a district and sessions judge, while in August, lawyers in Meerut went on strike protesting the killing of advocate Subodh Kumar.

On August 17, members of the Allahabad Bar Association went on strike to protest the proposed establishment of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western Uttar Pradesh. Recently, advocates in Tripura have called for a strike on August 24 to further their demand for a separate High Court for Tripura.

When contacted, the Chairman of the Madras Bar Association, Mr. Dhanapal Raj said, “We resort to strikes only under extraordinary circumstances, and with the consent of the majority of the members of the association. Also we go on strike only when all other measures of protest have been exhausted.” He added that the Supreme Court’s directions barring strikes by lawyers provide that such strikes are permissible in extraordinary circumstances. Furthermore, he spoke of the employ of other measures of protest of lesser gravity, such as the tying of white bands and fasting, prior to the calling of a strike, and of the provision of notice of the strike.

Such strikes affect the disposition of disputes by the judiciary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly, in a plethora of case law, affirmed its stand that lawyers are barred from striking, since such strikes affect the public's confidence in the judicial process.

The Supreme Court has reasoned that as part of its duty to maintain public confidence in the business of the Courts, it reserves the right to regulate the appearance of advocates in court. The Court’s reasoning renders the advocate’s right to appear before Court as a right distinct from the right to practice, with the former regulated by the Court, and the latter by the Bar Council. Thus, through such right of regulation, the Court has barred lawyers from going on strikes or boycotts and thereby jeopardizing judicial functioning. Further, in order to effect pecuniary loss on striking lawyers, the Court added that in the event of a strike, the court from which the advocate absents himself should permit the affected litigant to realise the costs of litigation from the advocateporn german porno german porno german porno german porno.

However, the number of strikes by lawyers, and reasons for such strikes, hints at the court’s disregard in the matter of reducing strikes by lawyers, and thereby rendering the Supreme Court’s directions a waste of ink and paper. The Supreme Court must realise that any measure attuned to reining in errant advocates must first instruct judicial personnel to consider the state of litigants, and thereby actively support measures to regulate the conduct of lawyers.

Reference points

Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India¸ (2003) 2 SCC 45; [2002] INSC 547

Common Cause v. Union of India, [2005] INSC 512

Paginate