HC hopes lawyers’ strike in Punjab won’t require judicial intervention

The court’s views came on a public interest litigation highlighting disruption of work in Punjab’s district courts due to strike calls from various district Bars

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Monday expressed hope that “wiser heads will prevail” in the ongoing lawyers’ strike in Punjab, observing that it should not have to intervene in the matter.

The petitioner, advocate Arvind Seth, raised concerns over the denial of access to justice to litigants due to the ongoing protest by lawyers. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The court’s views came on a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting disruption of work in Punjab’s district courts due to strike calls from various district Bars.

The petitioner, advocate Arvind Seth, raised concerns over the denial of access to justice to litigants due to the ongoing protest by lawyers. While protests through legitimate means are recognised as a way to highlight issues of public importance, the petitioner submitted that while doing so, no one could interfere with the administration of justice or deny litigants access to justice.

According to the petition, the National Legal Services Authority introduced the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System, which envisages an institutional mechanism for providing legal representation to persons entitled to legal aid.

Several Bar associations in Punjab have opposed the system, arguing that it adversely affects opportunities available to practising lawyers. The petition submitted that several Bar associations had passed resolutions against the system and announced an indefinite “no work” call.

On the court’s request, the president of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, along with some members of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, appeared during the hearing and said the issue ought to be resolved amicably at the level of the Bar itself.

Taking note of the submissions, the bench of acting chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra observed, “We hope and trust that wiser heads will prevail and this court would not be called upon to deal with the issue raised in the present matter on the judicial side.”

The bench then adjourned the matter to July 23.