DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, DEHRADUN THROUGHITS SECRETARY versus ISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 28-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 299
299
DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, DEHRADUN THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY
v.
ISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5440 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 28, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
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
Justi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.