New Delhi (Agency): The Supreme Court has voiced its disapproval of preventing the functioning of courts, stating that it is “not acceptable.” In a contempt petition filed by NGO ‘Common Cause’ regarding alleged violations of the court’s order against lawyer strikes, the court emphasizes the importance of the courts’ continuous operation and the timely delivery of justice. The court asks the Bar Council of India (BCI) to submit an affidavit detailing the actions taken in response to bar associations calling for strikes in the past year.
During the hearing, the bench acknowledges the practical difficulties caused by abstention of work, citing the large volume of cases and the impact on people’s access to bail. The BCI Chairman assures the court that the top bar body has framed rules on the issue. However, the petitioner’s counsel claims not to have received a copy of the rules and highlights an ongoing strike by lawyers in the Delhi High Court.
The court acknowledges that matters related to strikes often come before the judiciary, leading to the need for court intervention and orders. It refers to a previous case involving protests by lawyers for the establishment of a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court, where the Supreme Court had to pass orders to address the issue. The court emphasizes that the primary concern is to ensure the smooth functioning of courts and that different points of view are acceptable but should not disrupt court work.
The bench directs the BCI to file an affidavit within two weeks, specifying instances where bar associations have called for strikes in the past year and the actions taken in response. The court had previously highlighted the need for a concrete plan to prevent lawyers from going on strike and requested the BCI to strengthen the rules of professional etiquette.
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court had passed an order in April, stating that no lawyer can go on strike or abstain from court work. It also directed high courts to establish “grievance redressal committees” headed by chief justices to address advocate-related problems. The court’s aim is to ensure that grievances are addressed while maintaining the smooth functioning of the judicial system.
