Bar Council proposes to frame laws to restrain lawyers’ strikes
THE TOP COURT SOUGHT MISHRA’S ASSISTANCE IN JULY TO FORMULATE CONCRETE STEPS TO PREVENT LAWYERS FROM GOING ON STRIKE
The Bar Council of India, the apex regulator for Indian lawyers, has proposed to frame rules to restrain lawyers from going on strike and take disciplinary action against individuals and associations who defy the rule, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra told the Supreme Court on Friday.
The top court sought Mishra’s assistance in July this year to formulate concrete steps to prevent lawyers from going on strike, which it has ruled, was an “illegal act” to obstruct access to justice. Mishra said the proposed rule to curtail strikes by lawyers will be discussed at a meeting of state bar councils on September 4. In addition, he said action is also proposed against advocates who instigate others on social media to go on strike.
The bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah welcomed the proposal.
“We appreciate the proactive steps taken by the BCI in this regard. BCI shall file an affidavit in this Court before the next date of hearing,” the bench said before posting the case in the third week of September.
The case before the court pertained to an appeal by the District Bar Association, Dehradun which approached the Supreme Court against a Uttarakhand high court judgment that restrained lawyers in the district courts from going on strike.
The high court verdict of September 25, 2019, relied on data for the period between 2012 and 2016 to show that lawyers in Dehradun district were on strike for 455 days (on an average 91 days per year) and in Haridwar district for 515 days (about 103 days per year), which seriously affected the functioning of courts and contributed to the pendency of cases.
The Supreme Court upheld the high court judgment on February 28, 2020, and took suo moto cognizance of the tendency among lawyers to go on strike despite a clear bar imposed by the Supreme Court. The top court also recalled that BCI also passed a resolution on September 29, 2002, asking lawyers not to go on strike. Since lawyers nevertheless continued to go on strike, the Supreme Court did not close the Uttarakhand case.
“Taking a serious note of the fact that despite the aforesaid decisions of this Court, still, the lawyers/bar Associations go on strikes, we take suo moto cognizance and issue notices to the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/ abstaining of work by the lawyers,” the bench said in its February 2020 order.
Section 48 of the Advocates Act empowers BCI to give directions to the State Bar Councils. The 2020 verdict ruled that bar associations of advocates, and not just the advocates, were under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the bar councils.
When the court did not get a response from the bar council to its initial notice, the judges sought the BCI chairman’s assistance. Mishra told the court on Friday that state bar councils were unable to meet due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a meeting had been scheduled to discuss the proposed rules next week.