On Monday, July 26, 2021, the Supreme Court has requested the Chairman of the Bar Council of India to render assistance to the Court in connection with the problem of strikes and abstention of work by lawyers. The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that the office reports indicates that despite the court’s judgement, no response have been received either from the Bar Council of India or from State Bar Councils.
The Court, on February 28, 2020, taking a serious note of the fact that despite consistent decisions of the Court, still the lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes, had taken Suo moto cognisance and issued notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes by the lawyers.
The SC also noted that despite directions in precedents such as Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, lawyers' strikes were happening. In this backdrop, Suo moto notices were issued to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action to deal with the problem of abstaining of work by lawyers.
A bench comprising Justices Mishra and M R Shah categorically held that boycott of courts by advocates was illegal, and cannot be justified as an exercise of right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The Court had observed that in spite of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal, Common Cause, A Registered Society and Krishnakant Namrakar and despite the warnings by the courts time and again, still, in some of the courts, the lawyers go on strikes or are on strikes.
Therefore, taking a serious note of the fact that despite the aforesaid decisions of this Court, still the lawyers/Bar Associations go on strikes, the Court took Suo moto cognisance and issue notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action.
