EX. CAPT. HARISH UPPAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 07-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
EX. CAPT. HARISH UPPAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER I 7, 2002 
(G. B. PATTANAIK CJ., M.B. SHAH, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S.N. 
VARIAVA AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
Strike or cal/for boycott of Courts by lawyers-Held: Lawyers have no 
such right-Instead peaceful demonstra/ion may be resorted to-Further, cour/s 
may overlook prates/ on an Issue involving dignity, integrity and independence 
of the Bar and Judiciary provided ii does no/ exceed one day. 
Advocate-Role of-Whether could resort to strike or call for boycott of 
Courts-Held: No, since Advocate has obligations and duties to ensure smooth 
functioning of Court and owes a duty to his client-Strike interferes with 
administration of justice-Advocate cannot disrupl Courl proceedings. 
Sections 34 and 48A-Scope of-Discussed. 
Jn writ petition No.821 of 1991 an interim order was passed to the 
effect that except in the rarest of rare cases strike should not be resorted 
to and instead peaceful demonstration may be resorted to avoid causing 
hardship to the litigant public 1(1995) I Scale p.61. It was suggested that 
Bar Council of India incorporate certain clauses in the Bar Council of 
India (Conduct & Disciplinary) Rules. However the Bar Council of India 
did not incorporate it in the Bar Council of India (Conduct and 
Disciplinary) Rules and the phenomenon of going on strikes at the slightest 
provocation is on the increase. Hence the need to decide whether lawyers 
have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of courts. 
G 
Amicus Curiae submitted that this Court has declared strikes illegal; 
that even a call for strike is bad; that it is time that the Bar Council of 
India as well as various State Bar Councils monitor str-ikes within their 
jurisdiction and ensure that there are no call for strike~ and/or boycotts; 
and that in all cases where redressal can be obtained by going to a Court 
H of law there should be no strike. 
186 
·-
EX. CAPT. HARISH UPPAL v. U.0.1. 
187 
Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.406 of 2000 contended that Courts A 
have declared that a strike is illegal; that lawyers who are officers of the 
Court cannot use strikes as a means to blackmail courts or clients; that 
the call for strike by lawyers is in effect a call to breach the contract which 
lawyers have with their clients and if he does not attend Court it would 
amount to professional misconduct and also contempt of Court; that B 
Courts should cast responsibility on Bar Councils and Bar Associations 
to see that there is no strike and/or call for boycott and should also take 
action against Committee members for giving such calls on the basis that 
they have committed contempt of Court; that Committee members of a 
Bar Association or Council should refuse any requisition calling a meeting 
to consider a strike; that it cannot have any legal or moral right to call a C 
meeting to consider a call for an illegal act; that Court should frame rules 
regulating the right of lawyers to appear before Court and also against 
lawyers who mis-conducts himself and commits contempt of court by going 
on strike; and that this Court should issue a mandamus to Bar Councils 
to frame rules in consonance with the interim directions which have been 
passed by this Court. 
D 
Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.821 of 1990 supported the aforesaid 
contentions and further contended that Court should also declare that 
lawyers who do not want to participate in a strike should not be coerced 
by other lawyers or Committee members, which can be by physical E 
prevention from appearance, by a threat to withdraw facility or to 
terminate the membership of Associations and if any such threats are given 
or any such coercion is used then Court must punish the party so coercing 
for contempt. 
The Attorney General of India and most of the Bar Councils and F 
Bar Associations inter alia contended that strike by lawyers cannot be 
equated with strikes resorted to by other sections of society; that strike 
or abstention from work impairs the administration of justice and is 
inconsistent with the calling and position of lawyers; that abstention from 
work by lawyers, may be resorted to where the action protested against 
is detrimental to free and fair administration of justice; that cases where G 
the action eroded the autonomy of the legal profession, token strike for 
one day may be resorted to; that alternative forms of protest can be 
explored; that abstention f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.