Strikes on 66 of 134 working days: Supreme Court raps Faizabad Bar Association

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong disapproval against the actions of Uttar Pradesh's Faizabad Bar Association to call for and organise lawyers' strikes on a frequent basis [Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Others]..Strike by lawyers is gross contempt of court, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan said. This was after the top court noted the Allahabad High Court's observation that out of a total of 134 working days from November 2023 to April 2024, lawyers in Faizabad had abstained from work for 66 days. The Court proceeded to order every office bearer of the bar association to file an affidavit stating that they shall never ever pass any resolution to abstain from judicial work in future."Every office bearer of the petitioner – Bar Association will file an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the District Judge, High Court and this Court that they shall never ever pass any resolution for abstaining from work and if there is any grievance of the Members of the Bar Association, they shall approach the District Judge or if need be the Administrative Judge/portfolio Judge of the High Court, for redressal of their grievances," the Court said in its September 2 order..The Court was hearing the bar association's appeal against an August 8 decision of the Allahabad High Court that established an Elders Committee to take over the affairs of the association and oversee its business and guarantee that elections to its Governing Council are held by December 2024..When the matter came up on September 2, Senior Advocate Rakesh Khanna, appearing for the association, prayed for stay on the High Court's decision which had called for elections.To this, a visibly upset Justice Kant said,"Why should we stay the elections and the bold High Court order? We cannot let you do harassment of litigants. How can you call for strike? We will say give undertaking that you will refrain. It is very unfortunate, out of 134 days, 66 days (you are) abstaining from work?"The Court noted the High Court had taken a stern view of the frequent strikes by Faizabad lawyers. In this regard, the top court specifically took note of the observations made by the High Court in para 14 of its judgment. Para 14 of the High Court decision said,"We may also mention that in the judgeship of Faizabad, there is a long history of going on strikes and from the report of District Judge which we have requisitioned what comes out is that in the month of November, 2023, out of 21 working days, lawyers abstain from work on 12 days, in December, 2023, out of 20 working days, lawyers abstain from work on 08 days, in January, 2024, out of 24 working days, lawyers abstain from work on 13 days, in February, 2024, out of 24 working days, lawyers abstain from work on 11 days, in March, 2024, out of 22 working days, lawyers abstain from work on 10 days, in April, 2024, out of 23 working days, lawyers abstain from work on 12 days. Thus, out of a total of 134 working days from November, 2023 to April, 2024, lawyers abstain from work on 66 days which is a pathetic situation."The High Court had also noted that even after it had reserved its judgment in the matter, the President and the General Secretary of the earlier Governing Council, which was elected only till December 2023, had passed resolutions for abstaining from judicial work. The Supreme Court adverted to the same in its order and cautioned that it would issue contempt of court notice to every member of the association.However, on a request by Khanna, the Court proceeded to call for affidavits from the office bearers of the association alone. "We will say it is gross contempt by them. We cannot allow mockery of justice or browbeating of court," Justice Kant had orally said before posting the matter for further hearing on September 13. .The Court also made it clear that it will not stay the order passed by the High Court."If we stay this bold order, it will demoralise the district judiciary and the High Court, which has taken so much strain in passing this reasonably fair and bold order. It was open for the High Court to have taken very harsh action but it maintained a very balanced approach. Otherwise the conduct that is shown is very serious," Justice Kant orally said..Besides Khanna, Senior Advocates Sukumar Pattjoshi and advocates Kumar Murlidhar, Atul Verma, Aditya P Khanna, Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Mukesh Kumar, Varun Chugh, Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Arun Kanwa, Vignesh Singh, Anoop Krishna Upadhyay, Abhinav Kaushik, Prashant Trivedi, Alok Kumar, Gautam Barnwal, Shailendra P Singh and Rohit Singh Lodhi also appeared for the association..[Read Supreme Court Order].[Read Allahabad High Court order]