Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 132 of 1988
PETITIONER:
Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal
RESPONDENT:
Union of India and another
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2002
BENCH:
M.B. SHAH, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
WITH
WP (C) Nos. 320 AND 394 OF 1993, WP (C) No. 821
OF 1990 AND WP (C) No.406 OF 2000
Shah, J.
We fully agree with what has been stated and discussed by
brother Variava, J. However, we would like to add as under:
For just or unjust cause, strike cannot be justified in the
present day situation. Take strike in any field, it can be easily
realised that that weapon does more harm than any justice. Sufferer
is the society public at large.
On occasions result is violence or excess use of force by the
administration. Mostly the target is to damage public properties.
Further, strike was a weapon used for getting justice by
downtrodden, poor persons or industrial employees who were not
having any other method of redressing their grievances. But by any
standard, professionals belonging to noble profession who are
considered to be an intelligent class, cannot have any justification
for remaining absent from their duty. The law laid down on the
subject is succinctly referred to in the judgment rendered by brother
Variava, J.
However, by merely holding strikes as illegal, it would not be
sufficient in present-day situation nor serve any purpose. The root
cause for such malady is required to be cured. It is stated that resort
to strike is because the administration is having deaf ears in listening
to the genuine grievances and even if grievances are heard
appropriate actions are not taken. To highlight, therefore, the cause
call for strike is given. In our view whatever be the situation in
other fields lawyers cannot claim or justify to go on strike or give a
call to boycott the judicial proceedings. It is rightly pointed out by
Attorney General that by the very nature of their calling to aid and
assist in the dispensation of justice, lawyers normally should not
resort to strike. Further, it had been repeatedly held that strike is an
attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
It is no doubt true that the Bar should be strong, fearless and
independent and should be in a position to lead the society. These
qualities could be and should be utilized in assisting the judicial
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
system, if required, by exposing any person, whosoever he may be,
if he is indulging in any unethical practice. It is hoped that instead
of resorting to strike, the Bar would find out other ways and means
of redressing their grievances including passing of resolutions,
making representations and taking out silent processions, holding
dharnas or to resort to relay fast, having discussion by giving T.V.
interviews and press statements.
At present it is admitted that judiciary is over-burdened with
pending litigation. If strikes are resorted to on one or the other
ground, litigants would suffer as cases would not be decided for
years to come. Therefore, some concrete joint action is required to
be taken by the Bench and the Bar to see that there are no strikes any
more.
For this purpose, in our view, the suggestion made by the Bar
Council of India in its resolution dated 29th September, 2002,
requires to be seriously considered and implemented by each Bar
Association. Grievances Redressal Committees at Taluka level,
district level, High Court level and Supreme Court level should be
established so that grievances of the advocates at all levels could be
resolved. If action is required to be taken on the grievances made by
the advocates it should be immediately taken. If grievances are
found not to be genuine then it should be made clear so that there
may not be any further misunderstanding.
It is true that advocates are part and parcel of judicial system
as such they are the foundation of Justice- Delivery System. It is
their responsibility of seeing that justice delivery system works
smoothly. Therefore, it is for each and every Bar association to be
vigilant in implementing the resolution passed by the Bar Council of
India of seeing that there are no further strike any more .The Bar
Council of India in its resolution has also stated that the resolution
passed by it would be implemented strictly and hence, the Bar
associations and the individual members of the Bar associations
would take all steps to comply with the same and avoid cessation of
the work except in the manner and to the extent indicated in the
resolution.
Further appropriate rules are required to be framed by the
High Courts under Section 34 of the Advocates Act by making it
clear that strike by advocate/advocates would be considered
interference with administration of justice and concerned
advocate/advocates may be barred from practising before Courts in a
district or in the High Court.
Hence, it is directed that (a) all the Bar Associations in the
country shall implement the resolution dated 29th September, 2002
passed by the Bar Council of India, and (b) under Section 34 of the
Advocates Act, the High Courts would frame necessary rules so that
appropriate action can be taken against defaulting
advocate/advocates.
...J.
(M.B. SHAH)
...J.
(D. M. DHARMADHIKARI)
New Delhi;
December 17, 2002.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
2