Allahabad High Court Declares Lawyers’ Strike as Criminal Contempt

The Allahabad High Court declared that lawyers’ strikes in the state amount to criminal contempt. The court stated that criminal contempt proceedings will automatically begin against any lawyer or bar association that initiates a strike, proposes a strike, or abstains from judicial work, based on reports from District Judges.

Reporting Requirements

The court ordered all District Judges to report instances of lawyers’ strikes or boycotts to start contempt proceedings. Both the Bar Council of India and the UP Bar Council opposed the strikes and suggested holding a condolence meeting at 3:30 p.m. on the death of a fellow advocate to prevent disruptions in judicial work. The court warned that it would initiate criminal contempt proceedings against anyone violating this proposal.

Calls for Administrative Action

Bar Council of India President Manan Kumar Mishra and UP Bar Council Senior Advocate RK Ojha stated that if the authorities do not address lawyers’ grievances, strikes will continue. In response, the Registrar General informed the court that a grievance redressal committee had been established on May 3, 2023, under the Chief Justice in the High Court and under the District Judge in district courts. The High Court committee includes the Chief Justice, Justice Rajan Rai, Justice Faiz Alam Khan, Advocate General, UP Bar Council President, and High Court Bar Association President. District court committees consist of the District Judge, Senior Additional District Judge, CJM, DGC Civil and Criminal, and Bar Association President.

Inclusion of District Administration

The court directed that a District Magistrate or a nominated Additional District Magistrate should join these committees to address issues more effectively. The Registrar General must notify all District Judges and post the notice to ensure adherence to the condolence meeting schedule.

Upcoming Hearing and Compliance

The court scheduled the next hearing for September 25 and instructed the Registrar General to submit compliance reports from all districts. This decision came from a division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Gautam Chaudhary during the hearing of a criminal contempt case based on the District Judge of Prayagraj’s report.

Strike Data and Supreme Court Precedents

The court reviewed data showing that out of 218 working days in Prayagraj between July 23 and April 24, lawyers went on strike for 127 days. Work occurred on 41.74% of the days, with strikes on 58.26%. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Captain Harish Uppal case, which declared lawyers’ strikes illegal and a form of professional misconduct. The Supreme Court had previously labeled strikes in the Supreme Court Bar Association case as both criminal contempt and professional misconduct.

Bar Council Responses

The court issued a notice to the Bar Council to present its response and requested a report from the Registrar General on all district courts. The Registrar General noted that conditions in other district courts mirror those in Prayagraj. The UP Bar Council urged all bar associations to follow a resolution to mourn the death of fellow advocates at 3:30 p.m. without disrupting judicial work.

Emphasis on Rule of Law

The court emphasized that judicial administration must function effectively to uphold the rule of law in the state. It stated that no bar organization can violate the Supreme Court’s decision, which is binding under Article 141. The court highlighted the critical role of advocacy in protecting citizens’ rights and its significant contribution to the country’s independence.

Also Read: Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath Criticizes Advocate Strikes at Prayagraj Seminar