Brijender Singh Panwar
It's time that the Supreme Court put a strict end to the vicious practice of lawyers striking work on the flimsiest of excuses in their own interest
Over the years, the disruption of work in trial courts due to strikes by lawyers in western Uttar Pradesh has put thousands of litigants to financial hardship and untold inconvenience. The gravity of the matter can be gauged from the fact that in Uttar Pradesh, more than 51 lakh cases are pending in trial courts which is over 25 per cent of total pendency in all States taken together. A report prepared by a panel of experts and submitted to the Allahabad High Court listing 10 districts where lawyers disrupted work for more than 100 days on an average every year for five years (March 1, 2010, to March 31, 2016) is an eye opener.
During these five years, in Muzaffarnagar district, 753 days were lost due to lawyers' strike, at an average of 150 days a year. In Aligarh, the figure was 697 days (140 days a year), followed by Agra 690 days (140 days a year), Faizabad 693 days, Sultanpur 603 days, Moradabad 596 days, Mathura 591 days, Ghaziabad 573 days, Balrampur 560 days and Chandauli 524 days. Although the latest data is not available, the situation has gone from bad to worse in the last five years. Taking into consideration the weekly and religious holidays, trial courts generally work for an average of 250 days a year. If over 100 days are lost due to strikes, one can well understand the reasons for higher pendency of cases.
Now, the pertinent question is who benefits from these strikes? Certainly not the litigants. As it is, it is difficult to get your case heard, and then there are frequent adjournments. So it is deeply frustrating to find the courts shut on the appointed day of hearing. There are a large number of petitions that require immediate hearing every day. The foremost examples are bail applications. If the courts don't work, thousands of citizens are deprived of their right to resume their freedom. Urgent interim orders are sought to protect persons and properties; cause lists show hundreds of cases where parties seek interim orders. Even a day's delay is crucial for individuals and causes them irreparable loss. After all, courts are the institutions where complaints and grievances are taken for resolution and lawyers are the experts who provide services to resolve disputes. So, it is a reflection on the honesty and integrity of lawyers if they hold courts to ransom and cause inconvenience to their clients by boycotting courts over petty demands.
The report, prepared by the Allahabad High Court and submitted to the Law Commission of India, states that the strikes based on resolutions passed by Bar associations were called on “unacceptable and flimsy grounds”. In addition, the report says: “Some of the common causes for strike in all UP districts were non-declaration of holidays like Agrasen Jayanti, Basant Panchami, etc.” It adds: “In most districts, the strike is virtually institutionalised. Often these strikes are called for specific actions, where a group of lawyers either do not want a particular case to be taken up or they desire a particular matter to be adjourned.”
However, it is observed that most lawyers are opposed to boycotts and do not approve or support stoppage of work in courts, except in extreme cases of threat to the legal profession or the independence of judiciary. They prefer to keep silent in the face of a vociferous minority that commands proceedings at the meetings of Bar associations and takes arbitrary decisions on behalf of all advocates. Judges are forced to adjourn cases when lawyers do not appear in the courtroom. The lawyers who wish to appear fear obstructive and violent behaviour from those on strike. The vicious circle goes on and the situation has exacerbated over the years.
The Supreme Court of India took the initiative of stemming the rot by instructing the Bar Council of India to suggest ways and means of putting a stop to these incidents of strikes in courts. The issue of whether lawyers can go on strike was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Common Cause vs Union of India (AIR 2005 SC 4442). The court held that it is unprofessional for a lawyer to strike and boycott the court. The Bar associations should not permit meetings calling for such strikes. It is the duty of the State and National Bar Councils to take action against striking Bar associations and sponsors of boycotts. The courts must hear matters posted before them undeterred by boycotts and it is only in the rarest of rare cases that abstention from court is justified, such as dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and Bench, which must be decided by the judge. Even this must be allowed for only one day, the apex court said.
As the saying “Justice delayed is justice denied” goes, the legal professionals should be aware that with each boycott, they erode their image in the eyes of the public and the institution that protects the rule of law. The Supreme Court should take steps to seriously enforce its ruling.
(The writer is a senior journalist and Chairman, Panwar Group of Institutions, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The views expressed are personal.)
