LI Network
Published on: December 10, 2023, 10:05 PM
The Allahabad High Court emphasized that lawyers engaging in strikes that obstruct the examination of witnesses will face serious consequences, including charges of professional misconduct and contempt of court.
The court expressed its growing concern over the escalating issue of lawyer strikes causing delays in legal proceedings. In response, it directed the Bar Council to promptly take punitive actions against lawyers violating these regulations and implement measures to prevent future disruptions.
Justice Ajay Bhanot, presiding over the case, remarked, “Lawyers who strike work and impede the process of the court by failing to examine or preventing the examination of a witness who is present in the court commit professional misconduct. The Bar Council is duly empowered under Section 35 of the Advocates Act to take appropriate action for misconduct.”
The court’s decision stemmed from an application where the applicant, represented by Advocate Kumar Parikshit, sought bail. Despite the applicant’s cooperation, lawyers’ strikes impeded witness examinations, causing significant delays in the trial process.
The court underscored that such disruptions violate the right to a prompt trial and hinder the fair administration of justice.
The court, operating as a constitutional entity, asserted its authority to issue orders in bail jurisdiction, upholding both statutory and constitutional principles.
It emphasized that the right to a speedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is a fundamental right that must be preserved in bail proceedings.
In light of recurrent strikes causing trial delays, the court called upon the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to address the issue promptly.
It labeled lawyers’ strikes as a major menace, disrupting court processes, threatening the rule of law, and causing inconvenience to witnesses. The court emphasized that lawyers, as guardians of liberty, play a crucial role in upholding constitutional values.
The court further noted that lawyers engaging in strikes that disrupt court proceedings are considered to commit professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. It urged the Bar Council to take necessary actions against lawyers violating these regulations.
As a result of its findings, the court allowed the bail application, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding constitutional liberties and maintaining the credibility of the judicial system.