Culture Of Frequent Strikes Gives Bad Name To Legal Profession; Brings Credibility Of Justice Delivery System Into Question: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court observed that the culture of frequent strikes gives bad name to the legal profession and brings the credibility of justice delivery system into question.

The Court was dealing with a contempt application concerning the incidents of strikes by the members of the Bar Association.

A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gautam Chowdhary remarked, “The culture of frequent strike not only gives bad name to the legal profession, but is also bringing the credibility of the Justice delivery system into question in the eyes of the common citizen. … it is high time for the lawyers to self introspect their act of calling strikes and restore the faith of common citizens and the lawyers regain their glory of the noble profession.”

Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra represented the applicant/Court while Advocates Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Sai Girdhar represented the opposite party/District Bar Association.

In this case, when the matter was called out, the counsel for the Court sought adjournment for two weeks, in order to collect the reports from all the districts with regard to the incident of strikes along with the details of office bearers, for being filed in compliance with the previous directions issued by the Court. Similar request for adjournment was made by the counsel for the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of U.P. AOR K.R. Chitra before the Supreme Court appeared to assist the Court in this case.

She stated that occasionally she is appearing before the District Judgeship at Gautam Buddha Nagar and is often being harassed on account of frequent strike calls made by the lawyers in the Court. She alleged that, some of the Advocates are indulging in activities other than what is expected of them, at the cost of their professional duties, as a result of which the reputation of legal profession itself is being harmed.

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “An intervention application is also moved by Shri Satyaketu Singh, an Advocate, practising at Ghaziabad for the last 47 years. Shri Singh submits that he has never approved the strikes call by the Bar Association and has always resisted the office bearers from calling strikes on one pretext or the other. He states that during last one year for almost 80-100 days there has been strike at Ghaziabad Judgeship and the members of the Bar Association are routinely passing resolutions calling for strikes.”

The Court further took note of the submission that the District Judge circulates resolution of strike to all of the Judges, as a result of which, most of the courts rise leaving the litigants in lurch not knowing as to what is happening.

“We are conscious that most of lawyers throughout the districts are opposing the idea of strikes, and it is a handful of lawyers who at the drop of the hat, resort to strike in utter disregard of the law declared by the Supreme Court”, it added.

The Court asked as to why only in the State of Uttar Pradesh the lawyers have to call condolence meet at 10:00 a.m. and thereby obstruct the Court working for the whole day. In this regard, it said that the judiciary is already facing backlog of huge cases for disposal and any further delay caused due to strike or condolence is wholly uncalled for.

“We hope and trust that lawyers in the district courts would follow the resolution of the State Bar Council to hold condolence meet at 3:30 p.m., so that the entire day’s work is not obstructed. We also emphasise that the office bearers of respective Bar Associations have to play the lead role in smooth functioning of district courts, and any call for strike by such lawyers will be viewed as an act in defiance of the directions of the Supreme Court, which specifically prohibits holding of strikes”, it also observed.

The Court said that the office bearers of the Bar Association who call for strikes will have to be personally held liable in such matters and this is high time that the members of the Bar Association at the District level realize their responsibility towards common citizens as also their fellow colleagues, and help in smooth running of the District Courts.

“We direct all the District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh not to circulate any resolution for strike call by the Bar Association, in their respective judgeship”, it directed.

Accordingly, the High Court listed the case on October 22, 2024 and requested the counsel for the Court to take note of certain grievances raised by AOR Chitra.

Cause Title- In Re District Bar Association Of Prayagraj

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra

Opposite Party: Advocates Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Sai Girdhar, Anjul Dwivedi, and Shivendu Ojha.

Click here to read/download the Order