Courts are not industries and Bar associations not trade unions: Allahabad High Court on Lawyers' Strikes

Courts cannot be treated like industrial establishments where strikes may occur since such strikes by lawyers to abstain from court work would bring the wheels of justice to a standstill, the Allahabad High Court recently observed [Jang Bahadur Kushwaha v State]..A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra made the observation while dealing with a plea raising concerns over frequent strikes and disruptions of court work in Tehsil Rasra of Ballia district."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 said in its January 24 order..The Court noted that in industrial establishments, trade unions may justify the need for strikes by industrial laborers to fulfill their demands from employers. However, such strikes cannot be justified when it comes to court work, the bench said. "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," the Court explained. .The Court pointed out that there is a "human element" to each case before a judge or a lawyer. "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," the Court added. .The bench further pointed out that if courts are shut for too long, it would drive people to seek alternative and potentially illegal avenues for dispute resolution."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 said..The plea before the Court was registered as a public interest litigation (PIL) on Court's orders since the issue affected a large number of people..The plea urged the Court to direct the competent authorities to promptly address individuals responsible for calling the strike at the Tehsil Bar Association, Ballia. The Court noted that the strike in Ballia had begun on January 31, 2023, and had continued in defiance of several judgments by the Supreme Court. .However, on January 19, the Court was informed that the strike had concluded and regular work had resumed. Nevertheless, the Court kept the matter pending and asked the President/ Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to provide details of the action taken in the wake of the strike called by the Tehsil Bar Association.The Court further took critical note of evidence indicating that strikes were called for several reasons unrelated to the legal profession such as the death of family members of lawyers. “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,” the Court pointed out. .It went on to observe that lawyers already had a mechanism to ventilate legitimate grievances without resorting to strikes. In this regard, the High Court referred to the Grievance Redressal Committee established by the Allahabad High Court on June 6, 2023 consisting of the District Judge, Additional District Judge-I, CJM, DGC (Civil and Criminal) and the President of the Bar Association of the concerned district..The Court went on to note that advocates are expected to uphold the dignity of the judicial system rather than indulging in activities that could shake the confidence of clients. "Various rules ... cast an obligation on an advocate to uphold the dignity of the entire judicial system and not to indulge in any such activity by which the confidence reposed in him by his client is shaken," the order further stated. .The Court went on to direct the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council to submit the guidelines it may have formulated pertaining to the observance of condolences and other situations which would lead to lawyers abstaining from work in any district or Tehsil within the State of Uttar Pradesh.The matter will be heard next on February 5..Advocate Sunil Kumar Yadav appeared for the petitioner.Central Standing Counsel Ashok Kumar Tiwari appeared for the respondent-authorities..[Read Order]