DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, DEHRADUN Vs. ISHWAR SHANDILYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is brought to our notice that the Bar Association of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur went on one day strike on 27.09.2021. To go on strike by the Bar Association and the lawyers is absolutely contemptuous and just contrary to the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45; Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 295; Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27 and District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary vs Ishwar Shandilya & Ors., 2020 SCC Online SC 244.

(2.) In the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra), this Court has specifically observed and held that the lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or to give a call for strike. It is also further observed that nor can they while holding Vakalat on behalf of clients, abstain from appearing in courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. It is further observed by this Court that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer to refuse to attend the court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is further observed that an Advocate is an officer of the court and enjoys a special status in the society; Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure the smooth functioning of the court; they owe a duty to their clients and strikes interfere with the administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy.

(3.) Despite the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and even the concern expressed by this Court against the strikes by the lawyers, things did not improve and again the issue of lawyers going on strikes came to be considered in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society (supra) and this Court in paragraph 4 of that judgment, held as under: