SC says Lawyers should not go on Strike; but

Jethmalani defends Bar saying not to work also

a constitutional right
BY: LIVE LAW NEWS NETWORK NOVEMBER 27, 2015 7:05 PM

2K
SHARES

Observing that lawyers should not go on strike or give calls to boycott courts, the
Supreme Court today gave a months time to various bar bodies including the Bar
Council of India to convene a meeting to solve the problem caused by frequent boycotts
once and for all.

A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra said : Our view is that the lawyers
should notDecree
go onCant Be
strike. Centre Fined Rs 1
its like Brahmastra Only Deliberate Or
(weapon created by Brahma). one should use
Reversed On Lakh For Ignoring Malicious Acts Of
it in a dif Account
cult situation,
Of but now a days this is
Welfare Of being used frequently. There
Insult is also
To Religion a
Misjoinder/Rejoinder: SC [Read Destitute Widows Can Be Penalised: SC [Read
Judgment] Judgment]
constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court prohibiting strike by lawyers. This is
a very serious problem, it needs to worked out.

The courts oral observation was made during hearing of a PIL by NGO Common Cause
through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, which has approached the apex court against the
recent strike of lawyers in the Delhi High Court and District Courts on the issue of
pecuniary jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the Bar, said not to work is
also a constitutional right. He, however, said that we can sit down in the family of
lawyers and decide the issue. Responding to this, the bench said that in a months time
meeting of the important sections of the Bar Associations be called to see if problem can
be sorted out once and for all.

Bar Bodies to Respond

The court also directed Chairman of Coordination Committee of District Bar

Association, Delhi High Court Bar Association and Bar Council of India to reply to the
notices issued to them as to why action for contempt of court should not be taken
against them for willful violation of the constitution bench judgement.

On Septmber 11, the court had issuednotice to Delhi Bar Association, Delhi High Court
Bar Association and Bar Council of India asking why action for contempt of court cannot
be taken against lawyers bodies for willful violation of the constitution bench judgment
of Supreme Court prohibiting strike by lawyers.

The notice came on a petition led by NGO Common Cause whose lawyer Prashant
Bhushan brought to the courts notice recent prolonged strike of lawyers in Delhi High
Court and all District Courts of Delhi on the tussle for pecuniary jurisdiction. The strike
by Delhi Bar Association and HC Bar Association had paralyzed work in Delhi High
Court and subordinate courts in the national capital.

Decree Cant Be Centre Fined Rs 1 Only Deliberate Or

Bhushan Reversed
has sought
On contempt of court
Lakhagainst the two bodies. We
For Ignoring areActs
Malicious seeking
Of
Account
initiation of Of
contempt Welfare
proceedings against Of
the respondents for willfullyInsult
and To Religion
deliberately
Misjoinder/Rejoinder: SC [Read Destitute Widows Can Be Penalised: SC [Read
disobeying the explicit
Judgment] direction of this Honble Court issued vide judgment dated
Judgment]
17.12.2002 in the above mentioned Writ Petitions (Civil). This Honble Court was
pleased to observe lawyers have no right to go on strike nor can they give any call for
boycott. This Honble Court has further stated that lawyers refusing to respond to such
a call cannot be visited with any adverse consequences by the Bar Association or the Bar
Council. the petition said.

Bhushan read out important paragraphs in the supreme court judgment (Ex-
Capt.Harish Uppal vs Union Of India & Anr]which said

In conclusion it is 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. It is held that
lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot attend Courts in pursuance to
a call for strike or boycott.

All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can
be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no
threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out.It is held that
no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of
considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be
ignored. It is held that 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., Bhushans petition
said.

It is being clari ed that it will be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue
involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in
such cases the President of the Bar must rst consult the Chief Justice or the District
Judge before Advocate decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the
Decree Cant Be Centre Fined Rs 1 Only Deliberate Or
Chief Justice or the
Reversed On District Judge would beFornal
Lakh and have to be abided
Ignoring by theActs
Malicious Bar.OfIt is
held that Account
CourtsOfare under no obligation
Welfare Of
to adjourn matters becauseInsult To Religion
lawyers are on
Misjoinder/Rejoinder: SC [Read Destitute Widows Can Be Penalised: SC [Read
strike.On the contrary, it
Judgment] is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards
Judgment]
even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or
calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from
attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall
be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss, said the plea.

2K
SHARES

Topics: Advocate Prashant Bhushan | Delhi High Court Bar Association | Justice Kurian Joseph | Lawyers Strike a
constitutional right | Lawyers' strike | NGO common cause | Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani | Supreme Court of
India

Decree Cant Be Centre Fined Rs 1 Only Deliberate Or

Reversed On Lakh For Ignoring Malicious Acts Of
Account Of Welfare Of Insult To Religion
Misjoinder/Rejoinder: SC [Read Destitute Widows Can Be Penalised: SC [Read
Judgment] Judgment]