Anushri Joshi
The Allahabad High Court recently underscored a profound concern regarding the perennial issue of lawyers in Uttar Pradesh obstructing judicial proceedings by organising condolence meetings during court hours, specifically at 10:00 a.m. The judiciary, already plagued by an egregious backlog of cases, finds itself further burdened by the unwarranted disruptions caused by such meetings, coupled with frequent strikes by the legal fraternity. The Court, in its order dated September 25, 2024, lamented that this detrimental practice appears confined to the State of Uttar Pradesh, where lawyers feel impelled to conduct these meetings at a time that effectively disrupts court proceedings for the entirety of the day.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gautam Chowdhary expressed their inability to comprehend this anomaly, particularly when the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had passed a resolution mandating that such condolence meetings be held post-court hours at 3:30 p.m. The Court opined that the judiciary cannot afford such interruptions, as the sheer volume of cases awaiting adjudication demands that court hours be utilised optimally. The Bench further highlighted that the frequent strikes by lawyers, a practice ostensibly contravening the established dictum of the Supreme Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India,2003[1], exacerbate the already onerous backlog of cases and severely impinge upon the rights of litigants, for whom justice delayed is nothing short of justice denied.
The Court’s exasperation stemmed from a report by the District Judge of Prayagraj, which revealed that from July 2023 to April 2024, lawyers abstained from work for 127 out of 218 working days, leaving the courts operational for a mere 41.74% of the time. The Bench rightly flagged this as an egregious dereliction of duty by the bar associations, which are tasked with safeguarding the smooth functioning of the justice delivery system. Moreover, the Court reiterated that any call for strikes by bar office bearers would henceforth be viewed as an act of contempt, holding the individuals responsible personally liable.
Intervention in this matter was also sought by a senior lawyer, Satyaketu Singh, practicing in Ghaziabad, who expressed his steadfast opposition to strikes initiated by the Bar Association. He pointed out that during the preceding year, Ghaziabad courts witnessed strikes on 80 to 100 days, and these strike resolutions were often circulated to the judiciary, leading to premature adjournment of court sessions and leaving litigants in a state of legal limbo.
The Allahabad High Court, in its final observations, sagaciously noted that while a majority of lawyers remain opposed to strikes, a minority faction continues to brazenly ignore the pronouncements of the Supreme Court outlawing such actions. This culture of defiance not only brings disrepute to the legal profession but also diminishes public trust in the efficacy of the justice system, a fundamental pillar of democracy. The Court issued a clarion call for lawyers to reflect on their role as officers of the Court and to desist from any actions that could further undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
The Bench concluded by expressing hope that the resolution of the State Bar Council regarding the timing of condolence meetings would be adhered to in letter and spirit, and that district courts would not be subjected to unnecessary disruptions. The matter is now set for further hearing on October 22, 2024, when a report will be submitted by the Registry detailing compliance with the Court’s previous orders. The Bench’s directive clearly signalled a firm stance against the continued disregard for the Supreme Court’s unequivocal disapproval of lawyer strikes, thereby reaffirming the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring the smooth dispensation of justice.
Case Name: Re vs. District Bar Association Prayagraj (2024)
Case Number: Contempt Application (CRIMINAL) No. – 12 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gautam Chowdhary.
Click here to access the order
[1] 2 SCC 45