IN RE : Vs. ZILA ADHIVAKTA SANGH ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of the hearing today, we have indicated to the learned Secretary of the Oudh Bar Association, the learned Advocate General as well as the senior members of the Bar who are present before the Court including the representatives of the Central Bar Association that the first and primary concern of the Court is to ensure that the disruption of judicial work must come to an end forthwith and work must resume. The members of the Bar have struck work and all work has come to a standstill since Thursday,11 February 2016. The cessation of work by the Bar over this period of time is clearly, in our view, in violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court and there can be no manner of doubt that the strike is illegal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly dwelt on the issue, inter alia, in its judgments in Common Cause, A Regd Society Vs Union of India, 1994 5 SCC 557, Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs Union of India, 2006 9 SCC 304, In Re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1995 3 SCC 619 Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs Jacks Aviation Pvt Ltd, 1999 1 SCC 37, Ramon Services Pvt Ltd Vs Subhash Kapoor, 2001 1 SCC 118, and Ex Capt Harish Uppal Vs Union of India, 2003 2 SCC 45.

(2.) In its judgment dated 11 January 1994 in Common Cause, the Supreme Court emphasized the untold misery that is caused to litigants both in terms of avoidable harassment and expenses by striking lawyers. Litigants have a fundamental right to speedy justice and if cases get adjourned time and again due to cessation of work by lawyers, this results in the erosion of faith in the justice delivery system which harms the image and dignity of the Court.

(3.) In a subsequent order dated 7 December 1994 in Common Cause, the Supreme Court noted the the suggestions which had been placed before the Court which included the view of the Bar Council of India that it was against lawyers resorting to strike excepting in the rarest of rare cases involving the dignity and independence of the judiciary as well as of the Bar. Moreover, even if a strike were to become inevitable, it was suggested that every effort should be made to keep it short and peaceful in order to avoid hardship to the litigants. Even in such rare instances where any association of lawyers including a statutory Bar Council considers it imperative to call upon the members of the profession to abstain from work, it must be left to the individual member or members to be free to appear without any fear or hindrance or coercive steps. Moreover, no such member who appears in a Court or otherwise practices in the legal profession shall be visited with any adverse or penal consequences, whatever by any association of lawyers, and shall not suffer expulsion or threat of expulsion.