The Allahabad High Court said that Lawyers’ strike waste not only judicial time but also cause immense loss and harm to all the social values and leads to rising pendency of cases, adversely affecting the system of justice delivery. If courts of law remain closed for long periods, people may take recourse to other means for redressal of their grievances, including those which may have no sanction of law.
The Division Bench of Chief Acting Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Jang Bahadur Kushwaha.
The petition, filed in public interest, highlights an alarming situation which not only relates to disruption of functioning of courts at Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia but also raises serious concerns which immediately need to be addressed by the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The prayer, inter alia, made in the petition is to issue a direction commanding the competent authorities to take necessary, effective and immediate action against the concerned lawyers/ concerned office bearers of Tehsil Bar Association, Rasara, District Ballia, who are responsible for calling strike, which is still continuing since 31.01.2023 till date, against the several verdicts of the Apex Court, so that judicial functioning of concerned courts of Tehsil Rasara, District Ballia is restored immediately.
Although, on 19.01.2024, a statement was made by the counsel representing the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh that now there is no strike and usual work is being transacted, this Court directed the respondent no 3, i.e the President/ Chairman of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, to disclose as to what action has been taken in respect of strike by the Tehsil Bar Association, Tehsil Rasara, District Ballia which was continuing since 31.01.2023.
Counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has placed written instructions on record and the stand taken there is that as of date there is no strike, however, it has not been disclosed as to how many days the advocates were on strike in the concerned Tehsil.
The Court noted that,
It is admitted in the own letter of Tehsil Bar Association, Rasara, Ballia that the lawyers remain on strike when any advocate dies or the U.P Bar Council sends request for abstainment from work, however, the said statement does not appear to be correct.
On record, there is a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, which is supported by voluminous evidence disclosing that lawyers abstain from work even if any family member of an advocate dies or for various other reasons totally unconnected with the profession.
On 04.12.2023, on account of death of elder brother of the grand father of an advocate and death of uncle of another advocate, lawyers abstained from work and the condolence meeting was called at 1.00 p.m with a decision to abstain from work for the whole day. On the next day on 05.12.2023, lawyers again abstained from work on account of death of mother of one Stamp Vendor and condolence meeting was held at 12.00 noon. On 20.11.2023, lawyers decided not to work due to death of mother of another advocate.
Similar thing happened on 21.11.2023. The situation went to the extent that on 26.12.2023, the Bar Association passed a Resolution that the lawyers were very sad due to death of Ex-Chairman of Samajwadi Party and present District President of Samajwadi Party and abstained from work due to this reason. Material on record further suggests that recourse to strike was taken on other dates also due to directions issued by Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court said that,
We may note that ‘STRIKE’, in common parlance, is considered as a temporary withdrawal of services by a group of an organisation with an aim to express the grievance or push some bargaining demand. Such an action may incur some temporary benefits but, ultimately, poses adverse effects all-around. In our judicial system, strike brings the wheels of justice to a standstill, bringing cheer and happiness amongst enemies of justice. Their whips get thicker, sticks more brutal to deepen bleeding wounds day-by-day, their apathy to listen the cry stronger and their sleep against call for justice turning into a deep slumber, so long as the saviours of justice, i.e the lawyers and the Judges, do not come for rescue of the victims of injustice, the Court observed.
The institution of justice and courts of law cannot be equated with industrial establishments where concept of Trade Unions is utilized to justify strikes by industrial labours owing to their demand from employers. Neither State Bar Council nor a Bar Association can be treated alike a Trade Union bargaining for their demands. They are well-equipped with all legal means to find out solutions to any problem. Lawyers’ strike waste not only judicial time but also cause immense loss and harm to all the social values and leads to rising pendency of cases, adversely affecting the system of justice delivery, bringing more and more hardships to the litigant(s) for whom the courts are meant. Abstainment from work for the whole day without any substantial cause also falls in the same category.
Each case that comes before a Judge or a lawyer, has an element of a human problem concerning the life, liberty, livelihood, family business, profession, work, shelter, safety and security of the citizen. Many of the litigants belong to the downtrodden and weaker sections of society who are defenceless, poor and ignorant. Their silent cry for a civilised human solution to their grievances and problems, and for a level playing field is a call for justice, to be felt and heard by all the components of justice delivery system.
If courts of law remain closed for long periods, people may take recourse to other means for redressal of their grievances, including those which may have no sanction of law, like approaching the criminals to settle their disputes, or either turning themselves into criminals and adopting all other polluted means for getting the work done. If this situation persists for a considerable period of time, the resultant effect on the society as well as individuals and the nation as a whole would be unassessable. In that eventuality, we would certainly shatter the faith reposed by us in ourselves while giving us the Constitution and its soul and that would be the most unfortunate day for all of us.
The Court observed that
The overall Scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments take the Court to reach to only one conclusion, that is to the effect that if any member of the Bar including office bearers of concerned Bar Association acts contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court or the provisions of the Act and the Rules, discussed above, the State Bar Council is competent to remove the concerned advocate/ office bearer from the State Roll of Advocates and to take any other measure(s) prescribed under the law, including against the concerned Bar Association.
Before us, no guidelines have been placed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (respondent no 3) which may control the strikes by Bar Association(s) and regulate observance of condolences.
The Court directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to bring on record the guidelines framed by it, if any, in respect of observance of condolences and other instances under which the lawyers abstain from work in any district or Tehsil of the State of U.P and whether any action has been taken by it in the case or not.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on 05.02.2024.