Supreme Court Upholds the Obligation of Advocates to Attend Courts: Strike and Boycott of Courts Deemed Contempt

Introduction

In the landmark case of District Bar Association v. Ishwar Shandilya (2020 INSC 237), the Supreme Court of India addressed the contentious issue of lawyers' strikes and their impact on the judiciary's functioning. The District Bar Association of Dehradun, Haridwar, and Udham Singh Nagar filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a High Court order directing advocates to cease strikes and ensure court attendance on working Saturdays. The core dispute revolved around the legal and constitutional validity of lawyers' rights to strike, balancing freedom of expression with the fundamental right to access justice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its decision dated February 28, 2020, dismissed the SLP filed by the District Bar Associations, thereby upholding the High Court's directives. The High Court had mandated that the involved Bar Associations withdraw their calls for strikes and ensure court proceedings continue unabated on Saturdays. The Supreme Court reinforced that the right to strike or boycott courts does not outweigh the litigants' right to speedy justice under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court classified such boycotts as contempt of court and emphasized the pivotal role of Bar Councils in maintaining professional conduct.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively relied on several landmark Supreme Court decisions that collectively affirm the judiciary's stance against lawyers' strikes:

• Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45: Established that lawyers do not have the right to strike or boycott courts, deeming such actions as contempt of court.
• Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (2006) 9 SCC 295: Reinforced the notion that the legal fraternity's strikes impede access to justice and are therefore unacceptable.
• Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2018) 17 SCC 27: Highlighted the significant delays in justice delivery resulting from lawyers' strikes and reiterated the court's authority to oversee and prevent such disruptions.
• Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor (2001) 1 SCC 118: Emphasized that advocates must bear the consequences of strikes on their clients, including costs and damages.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal rationale was anchored in the following principles:

• Priority of Access to Justice: Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution guarantee the right to equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty, which includes access to timely justice. Strikes by lawyers directly undermine these rights.
• Professional Obligations of Advocates: Advocates are deemed officers of the court with a duty to uphold the administration of justice. Their participation in strikes disrupts court proceedings and prejudices clients' interests.
• Role of Bar Councils: Bar Councils are entrusted with maintaining professional standards and etiquette. They are expected to discipline members who engage in contemptuous conduct, including unauthorized strikes.
• Constitutional and Statutory Provisions: The Advocates Act empowers courts to regulate the practice and conduct of advocates, reinforcing that the judiciary maintains authority over its proceedings.

Impact

The judgment has profound implications for the legal fraternity and the judicial system:

• Reinforcement of Judicial Authority: Courts are affirmed as institutions that must function without interference, ensuring that legal proceedings are not stalled due to lawyers' strikes.
• Enhanced Accountability: Bar Councils are mandated to take decisive action against members who engage in strikes, thereby strengthening regulatory oversight.
• Protection of Litigants' Rights: Clients retain their right to timely justice, free from procedural delays caused by external disruptions.
• Legal Precedent: Future cases involving lawyers' strikes will reference this judgment, deterring similar actions and setting a clear standard for professional conduct.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect or disobey the authority, justice, and dignity of the judiciary. In this context, lawyers initiating or participating in strikes that disrupt court proceedings are considered to be in contempt.

Bar Councils and Their Role

Bar Councils are statutory bodies established under the Advocates Act, 1961, responsible for regulating the legal profession and ensuring that advocates adhere to prescribed standards of conduct. They have the authority to discipline members for professional misconduct.

Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 19(1)(a): Provides the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 21: Ensures the protection of life and personal liberty.

The interplay between these articles was crucial in determining that while freedom of expression is fundamental, it does not extend to actions that infringe upon others' rights to justice.

Conclusion