Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to directions ending recurring Saturday strikes by advocates in Uttarakhand. Advocates have no right to strike or boycott courts, and freedom of expression cannot justify denying litigants access to justice and speedy adjudication. Withdrawal of the Saturday strike did not invalidate the High Court’s directions. The Court also sought concrete suggestions from the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils on preventing further strikes.
Issues
- Whether advocates could justify recurring court boycotts under freedom of speech and expression.
- Whether the High Court’s directions required interference after withdrawal of the Saturday strike.
Held
- Advocates have no right to strike or boycott courts, including by a token strike. Accepting a brief entails duties to the client and court that a bar association’s strike call cannot displace; courts should not adjourn proceedings merely because advocates are on strike. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.4)
- Freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) cannot justify strikes at the expense of litigants’ rights to access justice and speedy justice under Articles 14 and 21. The recurring Saturday boycotts constituted contempt, and the High Court’s directions had to be implemented in their true spirit. (¶ 6.7)
- Withdrawal of the Saturday strike furnished no ground to set aside the directions. Breach would attract serious consequences under contempt jurisdiction. The Bar Council of India and all State Bar Councils were required to suggest concrete further measures against strikes within six weeks. (¶¶ 5, 6.7, 7)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed. Compliance with the High Court’s directions required; suo motu notices issued to the Bar Council of India and all State Bar Councils for responses within six weeks.