The Allahabad High Court recently flagged the trend of lawyers and bar bodies in Uttar Pradesh organising condolence meetings at 10 am leading loss of court working hours [Re vs District Bar Association Prayagraj].
The judiciary is already facing a huge backlog of cases and such condolence meetings and strikes during working hours of courts only add to the delay in disposal of cases, the Court said.
"We are at a loss to understand as to why only in the State of Uttar Pradesh the lawyers have to call condolence meet at 10:00 a.m. and thereby obstruct the Court working for the whole day. The judiciary is already facing backlog of huge cases for disposal and any further delay caused due to strike or condolence is wholly uncalled for," the order dated September 25 stated.
A Division Bench consisting of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chowdhary was hearing a contempt of court case against bar bodies when it flagged concerns over the bar violating a resolution passed by the State Bar Council which mandates that condolence meetings should be held at 3:30 pm.
The Court also flagged the issue regarding frequent strikes by lawyers that disrupt judicial proceedings.
“We hope and trust that lawyers in the district courts would follow the resolution of the State Bar Council to hold condolence meet at 3:30 p.m., so that the entire day’s work is not obstructed. We also emphasize that the office bearers of respective Bar Associations have to play the lead role in smooth functioning of district courts, and any call for strike by such lawyers will be viewed as an act in defiance of the directions of the Supreme Court, which specifically prohibits holding of strikes,” the Court stated.
The Court had initiated the contempt of court case following a report from the District Judge of Prayagraj.
The report indicated that between July 2023 and April 2024, lawyers at the Prayagraj District Court abstained from work or went on strike for 127 days out of 218 working days, leaving the court operational for just 41.74% of the days. Notices were subsequently issued to the responsible office bearers and advocates involved in the matter.
An intervention application was filed by Satyaketu Singh, a lawyer practicing in Ghaziabad for 47 years. Singh stated that he has consistently opposed strike calls by the Bar Association and resisted their office bearers from initiating such actions.
He submitted that during the past year, there were strikes on 80 to 100 days in the Ghaziabad courts. He further explained that strike resolutions are frequently circulated by the District Judge to all judges, causing courts to rise early, leaving litigants uncertain about the status of their cases.
After considering the submissions, the Court said that culture of frequent strike not only gives bad name to the legal profession but also brings the credibility of the justice delivery system into question in the eyes of the common citizen.
The Court reiterated the need for lawyers to reflect on their actions and restore the public's faith in the legal profession.
It acknowledged that most lawyers across districts are opposed to strikes, but a small group frequently resorts to this measure, ignoring the Supreme Court’s rulings which have outlawed strikes by lawyers.
“Since we have already issued directions in our previous order for enforcing the judgment of Supreme Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 and other similar cases, we hope and trust that the lawyers will see the cause in correct perspective and would desist from resorting to strike,” the Court said.
The Court also expressed hope that lawyers in the district courts would follow the resolution of the State Bar Council to hold condolence meet at 3:30 pm so that the entire day’s work is not obstructed.
The Bench further said that office bearers of bar associations who call for strikes will have to be personally held liable.
It listed the matter for hearing again on October 22.
“List this matter once again on 22.10.2024, by when a report would be submitted by the Registry in terms of the previous order passed by the Court,” the Bench directed.
Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra appeared for the applicant.
Advocates Anjul Dwivedi, Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Sai Girdhar and Shivendu Ojha appeared for various opposite parties.
[Read Order]