Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 17 December 2002 · 5 judges
Lawyers have no right to go on strike or call for a boycott of courts, even a token strike; courts need not adjourn for strikes, and a lawyer who abstains while holding a vakalat is personally liable for costs.
Facts
Several writ petitions sought a declaration that strikes by lawyers and calls for boycott of courts were illegal. Public notices went to Bar Associations and Bar Councils across the country, several of which were heard. By an earlier interim order the Court made four clauses the rule of the Court: individual lawyers must be free to appear despite a strike call, must not suffer adverse consequences from their associations, and other non-disruptive forms of protest remained open. The Bar Council of India did not incorporate these clauses into its rules, and strikes increased. Most Bar bodies accepted that strikes should be avoided where legal remedies existed, but the U.P. Bar Council argued that lawyers had a right to strike and that courts could not supervise their conduct. The Bar Council of India later filed resolutions proposing grievance redressal committees and limited abstentions.
Questions before the Court
- Do lawyers have a right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of courts?
- Can Bar Councils or Bar Associations call or consider such strikes, and what are the consequences for lawyers who abstain while holding a brief?
- Do the courts retain control over the right of advocates to appear before them, despite the disciplinary powers of Bar Councils?
What the Court held
- Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even a token strike. Protest may only take forms such as press statements, TV interviews, banners outside court premises, arm bands, peaceful marches away from court premises, dharnas or relay fasts.
- Lawyers holding vakalats cannot stay away from court in pursuance of a strike call and must refuse to abide by it. No association or council may visit them with adverse consequences, and no Bar Council or Bar Association may permit a meeting to consider a strike or boycott.
- Courts are under no obligation to adjourn because lawyers are on strike and must go on with their cases. A lawyer who abstains due to a strike call is personally liable for costs, in addition to damages to his client.
- Only in the rarest of rare cases, where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar or Bench are at stake, may courts overlook an abstention of not more than one day; the court decides whether the issue qualifies, and the Bar President must first consult the Chief Justice or District Judge.
- The right to appear in court remains under the control of courts. Article 145 of the Constitution and Section 34 of the Advocates Act allow courts to frame rules on appearance, including debarring advocates guilty of contempt or unbecoming conduct, without conflict with Bar Councils' disciplinary powers.
Why it matters
The judgment declares that lawyers have no right to strike or call for boycotts of courts, rejects the claim that only Bar Councils may regulate such conduct, and sets out the duties of Bar bodies, individual lawyers and courts during strike calls. It approves the Delhi High Court's reasoning that strikes infringe litigants' right to speedy trial, and confirms that courts control appearance before them under Article 145 and Section 34 of the Advocates Act.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc.”
“It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him.”
“Conduct in Court is a matter concerning the Court and hence the Bar Council cannot claim that what should happen inside the Court could also be regulated by them in exercise of their disciplinary powers. The right to practice, no doubt, is the genus of which the right to appear and conduct cases in the Court may be a specie. But the right to appear and conduct cases in the Court is a matter on which the Court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power.”
“In our view it is the duty of Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct. This being their duty no Bar Council can even consider giving a call for strike or a call for boycott. It follows that the Bar Councils and even Bar Associations can never consider or take seriously any requisition calling for a meeting to consider a call for a strike or a call for boycott.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)“Thus a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the Bar Councils are expected to rise to the occasion as they are responsible to uphold the dignity of Courts and majesty of law and to prevent interference in administration of justice.” (page 14)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Anr.
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 1988 (with W.P. (C) Nos. 320 and 394 of 1993, 821 of 1990 and 406 of 2000)
- Decided
- 17 December 2002
- Bench
- CJI (name not printed), M.B. Shah, Doraiswamy Raju, S.N. Variava, D.M. Dharmadhikari
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The main judgment was written by S.N. Variava, J. and signed by the CJI, Doraiswamy Raju, Variava and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ. M.B. Shah, J. (with Dharmadhikari, J.) wrote a concurring opinion agreeing fully and adding directions on grievance redressal committees and High Court rules.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.