Lawyers' Strike Will Be Treated As Criminal Contempt Of Court: Allahabad High Court

The Court's concern was triggered by a report from the District Judge, which indicated that judicial work in Prayagraj was disrupted on 127 out of 218 working days between July 2023 and April 2024 due to lawyers' strikes.

A Division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary said, “If the courts are not allowed to function at its optimal level on account of frequent call of strikes by lawyers the very edifice on which the entire system rests may crumble.”

The Court directed all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh to promptly report any instances of lawyers going on strike to the Registrar General. This measure is intended to ensure that appropriate legal proceedings are initiated in response.

Additionally, the Court issued strict instructions to bar associations, prohibiting them from abstaining from work even in cases of condolence for the death of a lawyer, court officer, employee, or their relatives. The Court said, “a further direction is (14) issued to all lawyers body throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh not to abstain from work even on account of condolence due to death of lawyer/officer/employee of court or their relatives and the condolence meeting may be called only after 03.30 PM. Any violation of this direction would also be viewed as an act of ex facie contempt.”

The Court added, “People of this State have reposed faith in the Courts to resolve their dispute and protect their valuable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. This faith cannot be allowed to be compromised by a section of irresponsible advocates who place their own interest over and above the interest of common man. If the functioning of district judgeship is allowed to be effected in any manner it would have an adverse cascading effect of grave proportions.”

The Court took note of a Supreme Court judgment that prohibits lawyers from striking and had previously requested the Bar Council of India (BCI), the UP Bar Council, and the High Court Bar Association to collaborate on developing measures to prevent strikes in Uttar Pradesh's district courts. According to the High Court Registrar General's report, strikes significantly impede judicial work across the state, exacerbating the strain on already overburdened courts.

The Court acknowledged that while there are genuine grievances among lawyers, which sometimes lead them to strike, it is crucial to address these issues effectively without disrupting court functions. Therefore, the court proposed the formation of a grievance redressal committee to handle legitimate concerns from both lawyers and litigants without resorting to strikes.

It was noted that such a committee already exists at the High Court and district court levels. The court decided to enhance its effectiveness by including the District Magistrate or their nominee, not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate, in the committee. This change aims to improve the committee's ability to address grievances and ensure smoother court operations.

The Court said, “we request Registrar General of this Court to issue necessary directions to all District Judges throughout State of Uttar Pradesh to include District Magistrate or his nominee not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate to be a member of the Grievance Redressal Committee formed at the district level. This would make the Grievance Redressal Committee more effective in dealing with grievance of lawyers and would thereby help in smooth functioning of the courts and facilitate dispensation of justice. Ordered accordingly.”

The court has scheduled the next hearing for September 25.

Cause Title: In Re - District Bar Association Of Prayagraj

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra

Respondents: Senior Counsel Manan Kumar Mishra and Advocate Sai Girdhar, Senior Counsel RK Ojha and Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari