LAWYER'S STRIKE

I. INTRODUCTION

 The Strike is a weapon of social justice for the powerless against the powerful. It is to be
used as a last resort when no other option is left.
 Over the last century and a half, the High Court and Supreme Court have evolved various
principles in relation to lawyer's strikes both by judicial and administrative experience.
 An advocate being a privileged and erudite person has to regulate his acts and conduct as the
same have a huge impact on the society. It is their duty to maintain a healthy relation
between the Bar and the Bench.
 Though lawyers are considered as harbingers against an autocratic society, yet they are not
permitted to gather and voice their opinion on account of the fact that the strike of lawyers
hampers the road to justice of the already suffering litigant.

II. PRINCIPLES OF LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

 Principle I - Lawyer commits breach of legal, moral and professional obligations if they
accept a case and fail to appear in the court.
 Principle II - Bar Association calling a strike is not a sufficient reason for not discharging
his professional obligations by not appearing in the court.
 Principle III - If a lawyer decides not to appear due to a strike call, he must return the
clients fees and brief in order to allow the client to make alternative arrangements.
 Principle IV - If the client will be unable to make alternative arrangements, it is his
professional duty to appear in that case despite the call for a strike.
 Principle V - If a lawyer appears in court despite of a strike call, no one shall intimidate,
coerce or threaten him.
 Principle VI - If a lawyer appears in court despite of a strike call, no disciplinary action shall
be taken against him.
 Principle VII - Courts have to dispense justice and cannot be prevented from doing so by a
strike call by lawyers.
 Principle VIII - If the courts is believes the strike to be justified, it may permit
adjournments.
 Principle IX - If the counsel wishes to argue a matter, the court shall hear and decide the
same.
 Principle X - The courts shall normally review a decision in a case where lawyers did not
appear because of a strike.

III. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON LAWYER'S RIGHT TO STRIKE

The Apex Court has categorically held that lawyers had no right to strike and any such strike or
declaration shall be illegal requiring action against the errant individuals. Several petitions have been
raised on this issue wherein such strikes or calls for boycott have been held illegal. Following are
some of the important cases.
Case Law :- B.L.Wadhera v. State

Held :- If a lawyer who holds a vakalatnama abstains from appearing in the court on the ground of
strike, he is guilty of professional misconduct, a breach of contract, breach of trust and a breach of
professional duty.

Lawyers Have No Right To Token Strike

Case Law :- Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. UOI

Held :- The apex court held as follows :-

 Lawyers have no right to go on a strike, not even on a token strike.

 If any protest is required by them, it can only be by way of press statements, TV interviews,
wearing black or any colour arm band etc.
 All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott.
 No lawyer can be subjected to any adverse consequences by the bar council or association.
 Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on a strike. It is the
duty of the court to continue with proceedings even in the absence of lawyers.
 Courts must take very serious view of strikes and calls for boycott.

Law is No Trade and Briefs Not Merchandise

Case law :- Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor

Held :- The relationship between the lawyer and the client is of trust and confidence. If there is a
strike by the lawyers, the process of the court which is intended to secure justice is obstructed which
is unwarranted under the provisions of the advocates act. Law is no trade and briefs of the litigants
is not merchandise.

When Lawyers May Strike

It has been held by the apex court that a strike by the lawyers would be justified in rarest of rare
cases, such as, where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar or Bench are at stake. In
such situations, the courts may ignore the absence of lawyers from work but not more than one day.

Justice Varivava further held that in such cases, the President of the Bar shall first consult the Chief
Justice or the District Judge, whose decision pertaining to strike shall be final.

IV. CONCLUSION

It can be concluded by taking into account the decisions of the apex court that Articles 19(1)(g) and
21 of the Constitution of India do not include a fundamental right to boycott the work or go on a
strike.

As opined by H.M.Seervai, as long as the legal redress is available, lawyers have no jurisdiction to
commit a gross criminal contempt of court and stall the speedy trial, thereby striking at the heart of
liberty conferred on every person by Constitution of India.