Lawyers strike across Delhi courts over virtual deposition rule

The lawyers said the move undermines fair trial standards and reaffirmed that plans are afoot to sit on an agitation from next week

Lawyers across Delhi’s six district courts went on a strike on Friday, protesting against a notification approved by Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena that allows police officers to depose before court via video conferencing from designated police stations.

Lawyers strike across Delhi courts over virtual deposition rule

The lawyers said the move undermines fair trial standards and reaffirmed that plans are afoot to sit on an agitation from next week, if their demands are not met.

Illegal to hold strikes

The strike comes in direct defiance of multiple Supreme Court rulings calling lawyers’ strike as illegal and unethical. The top court has held that such protests obstruct justice and violate rights of litigants to access courts.

On September 2 last year, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan had said that abstention from work undermines the justice delivery system, saying lawyers involved were unworthy of continuing in the profession.

The court was reviewing the conduct of the Faizabad Bar Association which had abstained from work for 66 out of 134 days between November 2023 and April 2024.

On November 29 last year, while dealing with a call for strike issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court bar association, the top court went to the extent of declaring that calling strikes in court amounted to holding thousands of litigants to ransom who approach the court for justice.

The bench went on to threaten contempt proceedings, if such a practice is resorted to in the future.

In a landmark judgement in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India & Anr case, the Supreme Court held that lawyers had no right to call a strike and boycott court proceedings, stating that such actions constituted professional misconduct and violation of their duties as officers of the court.

It said that while peaceful protests are allowed such as giving statements to the media, displaying banners, holding dharnas outside court premises and wearing armbands, abstaining from work can be permitted only in the rarest of the rare cases, where the independence of the bar is threatened, and even if, only for a day.

For Delhi’s bar leaders, the legality behind calling the present strike is out of question, as they claimed that the protest is in favour of the right of an accused during a trial and all legal remedies will be sought by them to defend their actions.

What advocates say

Advocates claim that the provision compromises the transparency and integrity of witness testimonies. Tarun Rana, Additional Secretary General of Coordination Committee of All District Bar Associations of Delhi said, “It will paralyse the trial process and act against the accused and their lawyer…anyone can prompt the police officer from behind the camera on what to depose before the court”.

Despite acknowledging the legal consequences of a strike, Rana said that repeated representations to the LG’s office, Union Law Minister and Delhi Chief Minister had gone unanswered. “We were left with no option. The strike will continue until the government intervenes,” Rana said.

Advocate R.S. Kundu, former secretary of New Delhi Bar Association, said that while Supreme Court rulings have taken exception to the strikes, the present protest concerns administration of justice reiterated by the apex court themselves. “A police officer being allowed to depose virtually is unthinkable and illegal…he can be a crucial witness and physical presence is out to be required to study the officer’s demeanour and responses…the strikes are for a larger good,” he said.

Advocate Anil Basoya, Secretary General of the coordination committee, said, “We are planning to go on a sit-in agitation from next week onwards if the notification is not withdrawn…the strikes are not illegal as the issue concerns the litigants and affects the whole system. All advocates have been asked to cooperate and action will be taken against those who appear before court…the strike will continue”.

Proceedings adjourned

The strike impacted court functioning across the city, with many proceedings being adjourned.

“Urgent matters and custody hearings were taken up but trial proceedings were adjourned as counsels and the judges reasoned that the matter should be heard once normalcy resumes,” a staff member said.

Several lawyers refrained from officially recording their appearances in court orders, fearing backlash from fellow members, said another staff member.