The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that any action by individual lawyers or their associations to go on strike, call for a strike, or abstain from work will be considered an act of criminal contempt [In Re District Bar Association Of Prayagraj].
A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary instructed all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh to report any such strikes by lawyers to the Registrar General, enabling appropriate legal proceedings.
The Court also directed bar associations not to abstain from work, even in the event of a condolence due to the death of a lawyer, court officer, employee, or their relatives. It specified that condolence meetings should only be held after 3:30 PM.
“Any violation of this direction will be treated as an act of ex facie contempt,” the bench stated.
The Court emphasized that the administration of justice requires the smooth and effective functioning of courts, without which the rule of law cannot be upheld.
“If courts are unable to operate at their full capacity due to frequent strikes by lawyers, the very foundation of the justice system could collapse,” the bench warned.
The Court took note of frequent strikes by lawyers in Prayagraj after a report from the District Judge revealed that judicial work was disrupted on 127 out of 218 working days between July 2023 and April 2024.
Citing a Supreme Court ruling that lawyers have no right to strike, the Court sought input from the Bar Council of India (BCI), the UP Bar Council, and the High Court Bar Association to devise a mechanism to curb strikes in district courts across Uttar Pradesh.
A report from the High Court’s Registrar General highlighted that strikes by advocates severely hinder judicial work in district courts across the state, further burdening an already strained system.
BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and Senior Counsel RK Ojha, representing the UP Bar Council, assured the Court that they oppose lawyer strikes and respect the Supreme Court’s rulings on the matter. They also informed the Court that the UP Bar Council had passed a resolution earlier this year, urging lawyers not to abstain from work even for condolence purposes.
Acknowledging that it is time to enforce the ban on lawyer strikes more effectively, the Court stated, “The people of this state have placed their trust in the courts to resolve disputes and safeguard their constitutional rights. This trust cannot be compromised by irresponsible advocates prioritizing their interests over the common man’s.”
However, the Court also recognized that lawyers sometimes face genuine hardships and, when their legitimate grievances are ignored, they resort to strikes.
To address this, the Court suggested forming a grievance redressal committee at both the High Court and district court levels to resolve lawyers’ issues without resorting to strikes.
The Court was informed that such committees already exist, and it was suggested that the District Magistrate or their nominee be included in these committees.
The Court accepted this proposal and ordered, “We request the Registrar General of this Court to direct all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh to include the District Magistrate or a nominee not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate in the Grievance Redressal Committee at the district level. This will enhance the committee’s effectiveness in addressing lawyers’ grievances and promote the smooth functioning of courts.”
The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for September 25.
Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra represented the Court, while Senior Counsel Manan Kumar Mishra and advocate Sai Girdhar appeared for the BCI. Senior Counsel RK Ojha and advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari represented the UP Bar Council and the District Bar Association of Prayagraj.
