Allahabad High Court condemns lawyers' strike; says courts not for livelihood of lawyers, judges but to provide justice to people

Cases before courts should not be treated as mere statistics and there is a human problem concerning life, liberty or livelihood behind every case, the Allahabad High Court said on Tuesday while expressing its displeasure at the continuing strike by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh [Rakesh Kumar Keshari v Union of India]. .Lawyers in the State have been on strike since August 30 following a recent incident of police lathi charge on advocates in Hapur district. Justice Kshitij Shailendra said that the purpose of court cases and judicial system is not to provide livelihood for lawyers or ensure that judges meet monthly disposal quota.Instead, it is to redress the grievances and problems of litigants, the Court underscored."Cases are not disposable commodities to be treated as mere statistics. Their purpose is not to provide a livelihood for lawyers or provide monthly disposal quota to Judges. Each case that comes before a Judge, 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," the order said.Thus, grievances raised by lawyers will not weigh more than the tears and pain of litigants who have reposed their faith in the judicial system."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 not only by the Judges but also by the lawyers, the latter, unfortunately, not hearing this cry, whatever may be the reason which, certainly, cannot have more weight than the weight of tears and pain of litigant(s) who have reposed all faith in our judicial system and the institution of justice," the Court observed.The observation was made after the Court noted during the hearing of a case that despite allowing lawyers to appear and argue via video conference, the lawyers involved failed to appear."This Court, through Registrar General, had issued due communication yesterday on September 11 that arguments through video conferencing/ virtual mode would be permissible today onwards. Necessary links were also notified in the communication. Neither any learned counsel has physically appeared to argue the matter nor has any request for entertaining the present petition through video conferencing mode been sent to this Court," the single-judge noted.The Court also observed that despite the its positive intervention through orders in the suo motu plea, lawyers were continuing to abstain from judicial work, causing a daily increase in the backlog of fresh cases."Considering the ongoing strike of lawyers for the last several days, despite positive intervention made by this Court on judicial side on the request of Bar Association as well as Bar Council of U.P. itself in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2099 of 2023 (In Re v. Bar Council of U.P.) (Suo Moto), simply passing over this case would add burden to this Court and it would not be possible to cope up with the situation as the list of fresh cases is getting lengthy day-by-day," the Court noted.The Court eventually adjourned the matter in interest of justice so that litigants are not adversely affected due to non-cooperation by lawyers.The matter will be taken up next on September 26.Advocate Vivek Sharma appeared for petitioner while advocates Dhananjay Awasthi and Pratik Chandra represented Union of India..Lathi-charge on Hapur lawyers: Allahabad High Court forms committee headed by judge to examine Bar Council grievances.[Read Order]