Advocates – Strikes – Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(a) – The advocates in the entire District of Dehradun, in several districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar district in the State of Uttarakhand were boycotting the Courts on all Saturdays – Writ Petition before the High Court – The High Court directed the District Bar Associations to withdraw their call for a strike and start attending Courts on all working Saturdays – The Uttarakhand State Bar Council was also directed to initiate disciplinary action against the office bearers of the aforesaid District Bar Associations – The District Judges were also directed to submit reports to the High Court, in case advocates do not start attending Courts, to consider whether action should be initiated against the errant advocates under the Contempt of Courts Act – Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the petitioner-District Bar Association that right to go on strike/boycott Courts is a fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – Held: A right to Freedom of Speech cannot be exercised at the cost of the litigants and/ or at the cost of the Justice Delivery System as a whole – To go on strike/boycott Courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of Speech and Expression u/Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution – Nobody has the right to go on strike/boycott Courts – Even, such a right, if any, cannot affect the rights of others and more particularly, the right of Speedy Justice guaranteed u/Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution – Therefore, boycotting Courts on every Saturday in the entire district of Dehradun, in several districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar district in the State of Uttarakhand is not justifiable and as such tantamounts to contempt of the Courts – Therefore, the High Court is justified in issuing the impugned directions. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1. In spite of the law laid down by this Court in the Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45; Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (2006) 9 SCC 295 and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P. (2018) 17 SCC 27, this Court time and again deprecated the lawyers to go on strikes, the strikes were continued unabated. Even in the present case, the advocates have been boycotting the courts on all Saturdays, in the entire district of Dehradun, in several parts of the district of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar district of the State of Uttaranchal. Because of such strikes, the ultimate sufferers are the litigants. From the data mentioned in the impugned judgment and order, things are very shocking. Every month on 3-4 Saturdays, the advocates are on strike and abstain from working, on one pretext or the other. If the lawyers would have worked on those days, it would have been in the larger interest and it would have achieved the ultimate goal of speedy justice, which is now recognized as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It would have helped in early disposal of the criminal trials and therefore it would have been in the interest of those who are languishing in the jail and waiting for their trial to conclude. When the Institution is facing a serious problem of arrears and delay in disposal of cases, how the Institution as a whole can afford such four days strike in a month. [Para 6.6] [321-D-G]
2. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioner that to go on strike/boycott courts is a fundamental right of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and it is a mode of peaceful representation to express the grievances by the lawyers’ community is concerned, such a right to freedom of speech cannot be exercised at the cost of the litigants and/or at the cost of the Justice Delivery System as a whole. To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Nobody has the right to go on strike/boycott courts. Even, such a right, if any, cannot affect the rights of others and more particularly, the right of Speedy Justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In any case, all the aforesaid submissions are already considered by this Court earlier and more particularly in the decisions referred to hereinabove. Therefore, boycotting courts on every Saturday in the entire District of Dehradun, in several districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar district in the State of Uttarakhand is not justifiable at all and as such it tantamounts to contempt of the courts, as observed by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the High Court is absolutely justified in issuing the impugned directions. This Court is in complete agreement with the view expressed by the High Court and the ultimate conclusion and the directions issued by the High Court. Therefore, the present Special Leave Petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. [Para 6.7][321-G-H] [322-A-D]
Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC
45 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 186; Common Cause, A
Registered Society v. Union of India (2006) 9 SCC 295; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P. (2018) 17 SCC
27 : [2018] 4 SCR 1098 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.