Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India

Facts

• Lawyers across various courts in India had developed a practice of frequently calling strikes and boycotting courts on various pretexts (protests against judicial transfers, government policies, personal grievances).
• Litigants suffered enormous prejudice as cases were routinely adjourned for weeks/months whenever the Bar called a strike.
• A PIL was filed seeking directions to prevent lawyers from striking.
• The Supreme Court took up the matter to lay down definitive guidelines.

Issues

1. Whether advocates have a right to go on strike or give a call for boycott of courts.
2. Whether courts are justified in adjourning matters merely because advocates are on strike.

Held

• Lawyers have no right to go on strike. The right to practice under S.30 of the Advocates Act carries a corresponding duty to appear in court. No Trade Union right applies to professionals.
• Courts are under an obligation to hear matters even if lawyers are on strike. Courts should proceed with cases where litigants appear in person or appoint amicus curiae.
• Litigants are the real victims of lawyers' strikes, not the judiciary or the government. The fundamental right of access to justice (Art. 21) of litigants is being violated by such strikes.
• No exception for "token strikes" or one-day abstentions. All forms of abstention from court are impermissible.
• Disciplinary action is warranted against advocates who participate in strikes/boycotts.

Ratio Decidendi

Lawyers, being officers of the court, have a duty to attend court and assist in the administration of justice. The right to practice under S.30, Advocates Act, is coupled with a duty. Lawyers cannot claim any right to strike analogous to trade union rights because the legal profession is not a trade or industry.