look news india
Prayagraj, 24 August (HS). The Allahabad High Court has ordered that any act of going on strike, calling for a strike or abstaining from work by any lawyer individually or by their association will be considered an act of criminal contempt. A division bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chaudhary directed all the district judges of Uttar Pradesh to inform the Registrar General about any incident of strike by lawyers so that appropriate action can be taken as per the law.
The court has directed that the association will not be allowed to abstain from work even due to condolences on the death of a lawyer, officer, court employee or their relatives. The High Court has ordered that any condolence meeting should be called only after 3.30 pm. The division bench clarified that any violation of this direction will be considered contempt of court.
The court said that unless the administration of justice is ensured through smooth and effective functioning of the courts, the rule of law cannot be ensured. The bench said that if the courts are not allowed to function due to repeated calls for strike by lawyers, the structure on which the entire system rests may collapse.
The court had taken cognizance of the frequent strikes by lawyers in Prayagraj after a report by the district judge revealed that judicial work was affected on 127 out of a total of 218 working days between July 2023 and April 2024. Taking into account the Supreme Court's decision which states that lawyers have no right to go on strike. The court had asked the Bar Council of India (BCI), UP Bar Council and High Court Bar Association to assist in developing a mechanism to curb the problem of strikes in the district courts of Uttar Pradesh.
The report of the Registrar General of the High Court has revealed that judicial work in the district courts has been seriously affected due to the lawyers' strike across Uttar Pradesh. The bench said that the actual working days in almost all the courts have been substantially reduced, thereby adding more pressure on the already overburdened courts of the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Bar Council of India President Manan Kumar Mishra and advocate RK Ojha, representing the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, told the court that they were against the lawyers going on strike and fully respected the apex court's decision in this regard.
The UP Bar Council said that a resolution has already been passed to follow the instructions issued by the Supreme Court. It also said that this year too a resolution was passed in which lawyers were told not to abstain from work in case of anyone's mourning.
The court said that the time has come to take effective steps to ensure strict compliance of the ban on lawyers' strike. The court said in the order that the people of this state have reposed their trust in the courts to resolve their disputes and protect their valuable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. This trust cannot be allowed to be compromised by a section of irresponsible advocates who prioritize their own interest above the interest of the common man. If the functioning of the District Judge is allowed to be affected in any manner, it will have an adverse effect of grave proportions. However, the court also noted the argument of the Bar Association that advocates face genuine difficulties and troubles at times and since their legitimate grievances are also not considered, they are left with no option but to go on strike.
The High Court suggested that a Grievance Redressal Committee be constituted for the High Court and District Courts so that genuine grievances of lawyers and litigants could be addressed and lawyers were not forced to go on strike. The Court was informed that such a committee already exists in the High Court and District Courts. It was then suggested that the District Magistrate or a person nominated by him should be included in the committee.
On this, the High Court said that we request the Registrar General of this court to issue necessary instructions to all the District Judges of the state of Uttar Pradesh to include the District Magistrate or a person nominated by him as a member of the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted at the district level, who is not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate. This will make the Grievance Redressal Committee more effective in dealing with the complaints of lawyers and will help in the smooth functioning of the courts and facilitate justice delivery. The court will hear the case next on September 25.