AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 266

Chapter -VIII

Supreme Court Judgements on Strike - Reprehensible act

8.1 The prevailing situation in the courts are a real eye-opener and ironically it is one of the reasons for pendency of about 2.5 crores cases in subordinate courts. The Supreme Court had consistently been declaring that advocates do not have a right to call for strikes and held that the lawyers' strikes are illegal and that effective steps should be taken to stop the growing tendency. In numerous cases beginning from Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, Bombay7; to Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India8, it was held that the advocates have no right to go on strike. The Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike.

On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Court must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It was held that if a lawyer, holding a vakalatnama of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be in addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him.

8.2 It is relevant to mention here that the Supreme Court, in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal,9 dealt extensively with strikes by advocates. The Court held:

"that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day."

8.3 In spite of all these, the strikes have continued unabated. The dispensation of justice must not stop for any reason. The strike by lawyers have lowered the image of the courts in the eyes of the general public. The Supreme Court has held that right to speedy justice is included in article 21 of the Constitution. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar10; and in some other cases, it was held that the litigant has a right to speedy justice. The lawyers' strike, however, result in denial of these rights to the citizens in the State.

8.4 Recently, the Supreme Court while disposing off the Criminal Appeal of Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India11 deprecated the practice of boycotting the Court observing that:

"One other aspect pointed out is the obstruction of Court proceedings by uncalled for strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers or frequent suspension of court work after condolence references. In view of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal versus Union of India, such suspension of work or strikes are clearly illegal and it is high time that the legal fraternity realizes its duty to the society which is the foremost. Condolence references can be once in a while periodically say once in two/three months and not frequently.

Hardship faced by witnesses if their evidence is not recorded on the day they are summoned or impact of delay on under trials in custody on account of such avoidable interruptions of court proceedings is a matter of concern for any responsible body of professionals and they must take appropriate steps. In any case, this needs attention of all concerned authorities - the Central Government/State Governments/Bar Councils/Bar Associations as well as the High Courts and ways and means ought to be found out to tackle this menace. Consistent with the above judgment, the High Courts must monitor this aspect strictly and take stringent measures as may be required in the interests of administration of justice.".

8.5 In Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor12, the apex Court observed that if any advocate claims that his right to strike must be without any loss to him, but the loss must only be borne by his innocent client, such a claim is repugnant to any principle of fair play and canons of ethics. Therefore, when he opts to strike or boycott the Court he must as well be prepared to bear at least the pecuniary loss suffered by the litigant client who entrusted his brief to that advocate with all confidence that his cause would be safe in the hands of that advocate.

8.6 The Constitution provides for an independent and efficient justice delivery system. Any delay in disposal of cases not only creates disillusionment amongst the litigants, but also undermines the capability of the system to impart justice in an effective manner.13 The Supreme Court disapproved the conduct of the party resorting to dilatory tactics before the court seeking adjournments on one or other pretext and observed that the party acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of cases14.

8.7 In addition to the issue of strikes, the Supreme Court has also dealt with a large number of cases of browbeating of courts by advocates for getting a favourable order. As a rule, an Advocate, as an officer of the court, cannot be adamant on any unwarranted and uncalled for issue.

8.8 The Supreme Court in Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh15 held:

"The Superior Courts have a duty to protect the reputation of judicial officers of subordinate courts, taking note of the growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by unscrupulous practising advocates who either fail to secure desired orders or do not succeed in browbeating for achieving ulterior purpose. Such an issue touches upon the independence of not only the judicial officers but brings the question of protecting the reputation of the Institution as a whole."

8.9 In M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana16, it has been opined that:

"The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the Judge concerned but also to the fair name of the judiciary."

8.10 In R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma17, the Supreme Court held:

"In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon (sic beacon) light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. No effort should be made or allowed to be made by which a litigant could be deprived of his rights, statutory as well as constitutional, by an advocate only on account of the exalted position conferred upon him under the judicial system prevalent in the country."



Advocates Act, 1961 - Regulation of Legal Profession Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys