If BCI doesn't see urgency in curbing lawyers' strikes, we will have to appoint another body: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday yet again expressed its anguish with the Bar Council of India (BCI) not being able to finalise norms for disciplinary action against lawyers who go on strike. (Common Cause v. Abhijat and Ors).A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar opined that it would be left with no alternative but to directly impose punishments on lawyers guilty of boycotting court work.When the counsel for the BCI had sought more time to file a detailed affidavit incorporating suggestions of State Bar Councils in the matter, Justice Maheshwari remarked,"You have to take this seriously. If members of the Bar Council of India cannot see the urgency [in this matter] then we will have to appoint another body. Harish Uppal (2002) was rendered by this Court when, sir? And where are we now? You are the body responsible, sir. If anything of this nature has happened then you must act.".The Court then deferred the matter till till April 17, and asked the BCI to disclose whether State Bar Councils were creating any hindrances. .The Bench was hearing a contempt petition by filed by NGO Common Cause seeking action against lawyers who boycott court work.Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners today, said that the fact that Bar Council members are elected, leads to resolutions or suspensions against lawyers on strike getting withdrawn on the eve of polls.Justice Maheshwari, while asking for alternative ways by which Bar Councils can be constituted, then said,"You may be right on one aspect that so far as strike is concerned, which is an anathema to our system. Bar councils have not been found keen to take up the matter on the disciplinary side and to their logical conclusion.".The Supreme Court had in January expressed its disappointment with the BCI for its delay in putting forth concrete steps to prevent lawyers' strikes across the country. Justice Maheshwari had then remarked,"We need specific, concrete preventive measures. This not a process that we will allow to happen at your own leisurely pace. 20 years later, are we here to still execute? More than 10 orders passed. What is left for the system? Parallel proceedings to always go on? There should be least amount of litigation it should require."When the case was heard in 2019, it was submitted that the BCI was not enforcing its own resolutions in this regard, nor looking into the need for disciplinary action. The top court had then directed the BCI to file a comprehensive affidavit showing the pendency of various disciplinary matters across the country, including those before State Bar Councils.In December, the Court had taken a dim view of the BCI not being able to prevent lawyers from going on strikes. In November, another bench had frowned upon protests and court boycotts held by lawyers of district bar associations in western Odisha who are demanding a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court at Sambalpur..As on date, lawyers across the State of Madhya Pradesh are on strike. Read our coverage of the same, here..Madhya Pradesh High Court registers contempt of court case against State Bar Council chairman, members for compelling lawyers to strike.[Read order]