‘Strikes by lawyers unacceptable’: Supreme Court asserts ‘zero tolerance’ policy
The Supreme Court has consistently held that strikes by lawyers are illegal and unethical, as they obstruct the administration of justice and violate the rights of litigants to access the courts.
The Supreme Court on Monday strongly condemned strikes by lawyers, asserting that abstention from work undermines the justice delivery system, and that lawyers who participate in such actions are unworthy of continuing in the legal profession.
The court’s sharp remarks came as it reviewed the conduct of the Faizabad Bar Association, which abstained from work for 66 out of 134 days between November 2023 and April 2024.
During the hearing, a bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed deep concern over the actions of the Faizabad lawyers.
“They abstained from work for 66 days out of 134 days. Do they have any right to hold the license of the bar association? They must remember they are a part of the system. They are trying to browbeat the high court and the district judge... We are warning them and all bar councils in the country. We are putting them on notice,” remarked the bench, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
Senior advocate Rakesh Khanna, representing the bar association, attempted to clarify that the lawyers were not on strike. However, the bench remained unswayed and insisted on stringent measures. “We want personal affidavits of all your office bearers,” the bench told Khanna.
The court order mandated that the bar association obtain an undertaking from all its members, pledging that they would never resort to strike again.
“After obtaining the undertaking from all members, every office bearer shall file an affidavit before the district judge, high court, and Supreme Court that they shall never pass any resolution for abstaining from work. For redressal of any grievance, they shall approach the district judge or the administrative judge of the high court,” the order added.
The bench declined to grant relief despite Khanna’s plea for a stay on the high court’s order that set up a panel of lawyers to take over the bar association’s affairs and get the elections to its governing council held by December 2024. The high court also said that any call for strike by then bar body would lead to registration of a suo motu contempt case against the association.
“We won’t stay the high court order. The high court has set up a committee. We will not allow you to function in the meantime. What you have been doing is very disturbing and pathetic. We won’t pass any order of stay because it would demoralise the high court and our district judiciary. The high court has acted with a lot of composure despite the conduct of the bar association,” the bench emphasised.
The bench underscored the impact of such strikes on the broader justice system, underscoring that litigants and witnesses often cross significant financial and logistical barriers only to find that lawyers are not allowing courts to function. The judges lauded the Supreme Court Bar Association as a model of professionalism, noting that it has never resorted to strikes, and questioned how lawyers who engage in such disruptive activities can be considered worthy of continuing in the legal profession. The court will hear the matter again on September 13.
Starting its judgment in the Harish Uppal case in 2002, the Supreme Court has consistently held that strikes by lawyers are illegal and unethical, as they obstruct the administration of justice and violate the rights of litigants to access the courts.
