SC: Our order may not prevent lawyers’ strikes

R Sedhuraman

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, November 27

The Supreme Court today acknowledged that lawyers going on strike in various parts of the country frequently was a “huge and serious problem”, but said judicial orders would not perhaps be effective in preventing such disruptions.

A Bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra noted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court Chief Justice sought to prevent lawyers from going on strike following which advocates boycotted his court and were now demanding his transfer.

It was the responsibility of the Bar Council of India and state Bar Councils to issue rules, stipulating a code of conduct for advocates under which there should be no room for striking work or boycotting court proceedings, the Bench said.

It was hearing a plea by NGO Common Cause for initiating contempt of court proceedings against lawyers and their associations for issuing strike calls on trivial issues despite a 2002 judgment of the SC against such acts.

Arguing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan lamented that Bar Councils had turned a blind eye to strike by lawyers, but the associations that issued boycott calls were taking action against advocates who attended court proceedings.

Justice Joseph said, “Lawyers have no right to work, this is my personal view.” Justice Mishra, however, did not seem to agree.

“Strike should be the last resort of lawyers, restricted to rarest of rare cases. It should be used as a Brahmastra,” he remarked and noted that this was the findings of the SC in the 2002 judgment.

Appearing for lawyers’ associations, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani pleaded that “not to work is also a constitutional right.” Nevertheless, he sought time to have a meeting with “important sections of the Bar” to work out a mechanism to redress their grievances and avoid strikes and disruption of judicial work.

Accepting Jethmalani’s plea, the Bench granted four weeks’ time and adjourned the hearing.