Lawyers' strike: We can't let you proceed at leisurely pace, Supreme Court tells Bar Council of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its disappointment with the Bar Council of India (BCI) for its delay in putting forth concrete steps to prevent lawyers strikes across the country. [Common Cause v. Abhjijat and ors].A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi made it clear that it was for the BCI to act on the issue in the larger interest of the legal fraternity.When Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, appearing for the Bar Council, said that more time was needed to deliberate with State Bar Councils and frame rules, Justice Maheshwari remarked, "We need specific, concrete preventive measures. This not a process that we will allow to happen at your own leisurely pace. 20 years later, are we here to still execute? More than 10 orders passed. What is left for the system? Parallel proceedings to always go on? There should be least amount of litigation it should require.".The matter was next listed for March 16, with the Bench reminding the counsel that they were required to come up with concrete steps in a detailed affidavit..The Bench was hearing a contempt petition by filed by NGO Common Cause, seeking action against lawyers who boycott court work..At the outset of today's hearing, the Bench remarked that during the last hearing, it had called upon the BCI to do more on the issue of lawyers strikes."I had a talk with the Chairman. We were asked what we are doing to curb it. There my lords, State Bar Councils come into play. Deliberations will take some time," counsel for the BCI submitted."But all your members are from State Bar Councils. So do not say they are different. How long [will it take]? If BCI cannot do, who else will enterprise for the larger interest of the legal fraternity?" Justice Maheshwari replied..The Bench stated that disciplinary action against lawyers who had gone on strike was one aspect, while preventing the same was another, which the Council could at least regulate and frame further rules on. When counsel stressed that the same had to be a consultative process, Justice Maheshwari remarked, "But if you do not push things in motion...You do not want to do it, no sir. We thought you will come up with something concrete. Now you are neither here nor there. You come next time with details." He added that laxity on part of the BCI in the matter was not doing it any good. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Harish Uppal judgment had said that rules need to be framed against advocates going on strike, to which the Bench responded that rules regarding ethics and professional etiquette were already in existence.When counsel for the BCI apologised for the delay, Justice Maheshwari remarked,"Bar Council has to be seen as a responsible body. When it has so many rights and responsibilities given. Accountability standards heavier on it, it must show seriousness on these causes, sir...Mr Prasad, please take it seriously. Second time we are asking. We do not want the Bar Council of India to be sorry.".When the case was heard in 2019, it was submitted that the BCI was not enforcing its own resolutions in this regard, nor looking into the need for disciplinary action. The top court had then directed the BCI to file a comprehensive affidavit showing the pendency of various disciplinary matters across the country, including those before State Bar Councils.On the last date of hearing in the matter, the Court had taken a dim view of the BCI not being able to prevent lawyers from going on strikes. In November, it had frowned upon protests and court boycotts held by lawyers of district bar associations in western Odisha who are demanding a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court at Sambalpur..[Follow our coverage of today's hearing].[Read order]