Lawyers Have No Right to Strike or Boycott Courts, Not Even a Token Strike: Supreme Court

Five writ petitions, the lead one filed in 1988 by a petitioner appearing in person, sought a declaration that strikes and calls for boycott of courts by lawyers are illegal; Bar Associations and Bar Councils across the country were given notice (paras 1, 3). An interim order in one petition had made safeguards for lawyers who appear despite strike calls the order of the Court (para 2). Most Bar Councils and the Attorney General accepted that strikes were illegal, but the U.P. Bar Council claimed a right to strike (paras 7-9). Judgment was deferred while the Bar Council of India framed resolutions, which it placed on affidavit (paras 27-29).

Precedent had already settled that a lawyer who accepts a brief must attend court despite a boycott call, that courts cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike, and that advocates answer for the loss their clients suffer from such absence (paras 12-20). An advocate is an officer of the court, and strikes interfere with the administration of justice (para 21). The Supreme Court is the final appellate authority in disciplinary matters, and courts should mulct striking advocates with costs (para 26). The Bar Council of India's resolutions were not enough; it must incorporate the safeguards in its rules (para 30). Grievances can be voiced through press statements, arm bands, peaceful marches away from court premises or relay fasts, or through legal remedies (paras 31-32). Only a protest on an issue of the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and judiciary, not exceeding one day, may be overlooked (para 33). The right to appear in court remains subject to rules framed by courts under Article 145 and Section 34 of the Advocates Act (para 34). Shah J. added directions on grievance redressal committees and High Court rules (paras 44-47).