Facts in Brief

The issue for deliberation in the present case was whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or to give a call for the boycott of courts. The Petitioners sought a declaration that such strikes and/or calls for boycott were illegal.

Arguments

The Petitioners submitted that a strike as a means of collective bargaining was recognised only in industrial disputes, and that lawyers, who were officers of the Court, could not use strikes as a means to blackmail the Courts or their clients. They further argued that a call for strike by lawyers was, in effect, a call to breach the contract that lawyers have with their clients.

On the other hand, the legal fraternity submitted that lawyers retained the right to strike in rare cases, in order to communicate their concerns in the event of improper treatment being meted out to them.

Judgment

The Supreme Court declared that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott — not even a token strike. The protest, if any were required, could only be made by giving press statements, giving TV interviews, carrying banners and/or placards outside the Court premises, wearing black, white or any colour arm bands, holding peaceful protest marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas, or relay fasts, etc.

The Court, acknowledging the fact that even those lawyers willing to attend the Court could not do so owing to the strike or boycott, asked lawyers to boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. The Court also declared that no lawyer could be visited with any adverse consequence by the Association or the Council, and that no threat or coercion of any nature — including that of expulsion — could be held out in the event of his refusal to attend the strike or boycott.

The Court further observed that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys a special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure the smooth functioning of the Court, and they also owe a duty to their clients. Strikes interfere with the administration of justice, disrupt Court proceedings, and put the interests of their clients in jeopardy. The Court thus imposed a blanket ban on strikes by lawyers.

For the Common Man

In consequence of this decision, the legal position is that lawyers cannot go on strike. This judgment has given relief to thousands of helpless people involved in litigation. This case clearly lays down that if an advocate does not appear before a court by reason of a call for strike or boycott, then on a complaint from a client against an advocate for non-appearance, the Supreme Court can take disciplinary action under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.