Chandigarh, August 7
Describing strikes and boycotts by professionals, including lawyers and doctors, as “unethical methods of redressing alleged grievances totally unmindful of the grave injury caused to the common man”, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the advocates were “not entitled to abstain from work”.
Delivering the verdict, the Bench, comprising Mr Justice G.S. Singhvi and Mr Justice M.M. Kumar, ruled: “No advocate, whether he is a member of the Bar Association or not, is not entitled to go on a strike or abstain from work”.
The Bench further ruled: “Resolutions, if any, passed by representative or non-representative body of advocates, giving a call to its members to go on a strike or boycott courts or abstain from work, is illegal and the member of such a body or organisation is not under obligation to abide by the same. If any member of the Bar follows such a resolution and abstains from work, he does so at his own peril because if any prejudice is caused to the opposite side and the court imposes exemplary costs, then the same, partly or wholly, may have to be borne by counsel concerned”.
The Judges concluded: “No advocate can be punished by the statutory or non-statutory representative body of the Bar on account of his having violated the call given for the strike or boycott of the court or abstention from work”.
In their detailed 38-page order, the Judges observed: “Bandhs, strikes, boycotts, picketing and dharnas are hallmarks of the modern social set-up in the urban India. There is a complete lack of work culture, sense of duty, civic sense and responsibility. Unfortunately, these features are fast becoming normal traits of an ordinary individual. Professional bodies including lawyers, doctors and chartered accountants are not immune from this syndrome which is eating into the vitals of our nation’s foundation. Rather, strikes and boycotts by professionals like lawyers and doctors are becoming routine. They resort to these unethical methods of redressal of their alleged grievances totally unmindful of the grave injury caused to the common man. This is certainly not the society dreamt of by the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi”.
They added: “Members of the legal fraternity must remember that when a litigant hands over his case to an advocate, the latter becomes a trustee of his faith and confidence. The case may relate to his life, liberty, property, prestige or status. By abstaining from work in the name of call given by the Bar, the advocates would certainly be committing a breach of trust and faith. We are sure that the members of this noble profession would collectively consider the issue and create an atmosphere in which the already shaken faith of the common man in the system of administration of justice can be restored”.
Recently taking suo motu notice of the lawyers’ strike, Mr Justice V.K. Bali had observed: “Prima facie, there appears to be nothing that might confer any power or jurisdiction upon a particular Bar Association, or even for that matter, Bar Council of India or Bar Councils of various states, by the virtue of which punitive action might be taken against a lawyer”.
He had further observed: “A lawyer has no master and no employer. He continues to be engaged in self occupation. The concept of strike was thus, totally unknown to this profession for as many as 23 years. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the issue of strike by lawyers and pondered over the same. If the courts are virtually shut down on account of the strike resorted to be the lawyers, no litigation can ever be
decided”.
