(2) Violation of clause (1) shall be treated as misconduct and shall be liable for disciplinary action as contemplated under the Act and Regulations Provided that advocates may participate in a strike only when it does not impede the administration of justice such as strikes intended to bring attention to legitimate concerns about professional conduct, working conditions, or administrative matters and may include symbolic or one- day token strikes, as long as they are conducted in a way that does not disrupt court proceedings or violate clients’ rights.” Because of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgement even the controversial Bill recognized advocates' right to "participate in a strike only when it does not impede the administration of justice such as strikes intended to bring attention to legitimate concerns about professional conduct, working conditions, or administrative matters and may include symbolic or one- day token strikes, as long as they are conducted in a way that does not disrupt court proceedings or violate clients’ rights." How can a provision which was not indefensible in the proposed Bill, become defensible in the BCIs order?
BCI's order warns:"Non-çompliance with this order or any attempt to enforce abstention from work may invite appropriate action in accordance with law and the Rules govèrning professional conduct and discipline. Let a copy of this order be communicated immediately to The Hon'ble Convenor and Member, Co-ordination Committee of the three Associations of Patna High Court, the office bearers of the concerned Associations, the Chairman, Bihar State Bar Council and the Registrar General, Patna High Court, for information and necessary action." This threat does not appear to be in good taste and not an exemplary exercise in proofing error ridden communication. Is it not the case that directions and threats are issued to subordinates, and not to advocate associations? Shouldn't BCI make amends and express its regret with regard to its substandard communication? It is apparent that some junior person drafted it. The proofing errors in the order demonstrate that it was drafted, signed and issued in hurry. It refers to
Co-ordination Committee of three Advocate Associations Patna High Court recalled its call for boycott of judicial work on May 11
Responding to the request of the BCI, the Co-ordination Committee of the three Advocate Associations of the Patna High Court met in an extra ordinary meeting on May 9, 2026 at 1:30 PM in the Bar Association Hall, to discuss the request and direction of the Bar Council of India communicated vide its letter dated 08.05.2026. It decided to recall its call for boycott of judicial work but reiterated its grievance. The resolution of the coordination committee reads: "The Co-ordination Committee of the Three Association of the Patna High Court The Co- ordination committee ofthe three associations of the Patna High Court met in an extra ordinary meeting-on 9th May 2026 at 1:30 PM in the Bar Association Hall., to discuss the request and direction of the Bar Council of India communicated vide its letter dated 08.05.2026. The relevant contents of the said letter is as follows:'The Bar Council of India js conscious that members of the Bar may have genuine grievances and may hold meetings, deliberate upon such issues and place their grievances and may hold meeting, deliberate upon such issues and place their grievances before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Patna High Court or any appropriate authority in a respectful and institutional manner. However, any call for abstențion from court work, boycott of courts or suspension of professional duties is impermissible in law and contrary to the settled judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court. Advocates are officers of the Court and no grievance can justify obstruction of judicial work or prejudice to litigants". "Accordingly, the Co- ordination Committee of the Three Associations of the Patna High Court and all concerned office bearers are requested and directed to forthwith withdraw and recall the notice/resolution dated 07.05.2026 insofar as it calls upon members of the Bar to abstain from professional duties on 11.05.2026 or on any other date. They shall not issue, circulate, enforce or act upon any call for abstention, boycott or suspension of court work".
The resolution cites BCI's observation, which reads: "The concerned Associations are at liberty to hold a peaceful and dignified meeting and to seek an appropriate meeting with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Patna High Court for redressal of their grievances, provided that court work is not obstructed and no advocate is prevented, prevented, persuaded or pressurized from appearing before any Court". It added: "The concerned Associations shall immediately issue a fresh notice/ publication stating that the earlier call for abstention from professional duties has been recalled. A copy of such recall notice/ publication shall be sent to the Bar Council of India forthwith."
The resolution referred to BCI's observation, which reads: "Non-compliance with this order or any attempt to enforce abstention from court work may invite appropriate action in accordance With law and the Rules governing professional conduct and discipline.' In view of the above the co- ordination committee, of the three Associations unanimously withdraws its notice dated 08.05.2026 for abstention from professional work on l1.05.2026. The members of the Bar are therefore requested to kindly attend to their professional duties on 11.05.2026. However, the co- ordination committee of the three associations were unanimous, that the Bar being an integral part of the Justice Dispensation system deserves to be given due respect. The Bar also requests the Hon'ble High Court that any decision concerning the Bar be not taken unilaterally and the Bar be taken into confidence. It is requested that the notice no. 03 dated 7th May 2026 be withdrawn and the SOP dated Feb. 2026, be implemented which had been prepared after discussion with all Stake Holders including the Bar. The decision as communicated in notice no. 3 dated 7th May 2006 was never a part of the aforesaid SOP. the senior members and such members of Bar (Senior or Young Lawyers) with disabilities be allowed to use their cars to alight near the lifts as before, which shall after dropping will then go and park in the parking provided. The Bar wishes to communicate that it is also sensitive about the security of the High Court and would co- operate with the administration. As directed by the Hon'ble Chairman BCI, a copy of the resolution bẹ forwarded to BCI forth with."
It is evident from the resolution that the position of the advocate associations is quite reasonable. It is hoped that the matter which gained nation-wide attention will get resolved by Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, the Chief Justice of Patna High Court before his retirement on June 4, 2026 after the expiry of his six month long tenure.
Recent history of boycott of judicial work by Advocates
Indian Express reported Bar Association boycotts senior judge for ‘insulting’ advocate when the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association passed a resolution in its Full House, asking for the transfer of Justice Singh from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Bar boycotted his court until the transfer demand is not met. The issue was sparked when Advocate M K Tiwari and Justice Uma Nath Singh got involved in a heated exchange. The advocates of of Punjab and Haryana High Court boycotted Justice Uma Nath Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court for 16-days. Subsequently, facing prolonged boycott by the Bar, Justice Uma Nath requested Chief Justice of India for his transfer him because Bar refused to appear before the Bench headed by him.
It is noteworthy that Bihar State Bar Council (BSBC) had called lawyers across the state to abstain from court work on July 15, 2015. Notably, BCI's chairman is ex-officio member of the BSBC as well. Advocate General is also an ex-officio member of the BSBC. The Times of India had reported about it in its news story entitled Patna High Court 'Pulls up' Bar Council for 'boycott' call.
Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council boycotted the Courts on November 24, 2015. After the flash boycott decision was announced by the Bar Associations on November 23, 2015, the Court work was completely paralysed for the second half of the day, the State Bar Council announced a State wide boycott, by convening an emergent meeting, even on the following Court working day i.e. November 24, 2015.
The Times of India had reported that advocates of Allahabad High Court had abstained from judicial work on July 11, 2024 in order to highlight the problems being faced by them in day to day functioning of judicial system. Meanwhile, work in the high court remained paralysed, as the advocates on a call given by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association boycotted the judicial work.
The Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations had announced a complete abstention from work on August 22–23, 2025, regarding a notification about police evidence recording.
Earlier, Patna High Court Advocates had announced boycott of Acting Chief Justice’s Court over inaction on assault of 2 lawyers, wherein two lawyers were allegedly assaulted on their way to the High Court in mid-September 2025.
Notably, the Advocate Associations of the Patna High Court had given a call to boycott judicial work on February 25, 2025 against draft Advocates Amendment Bill, 2025.The mere threat of the country-wide boycott of compelled the government to withdraw the proposed bill. The Union law ministry had said that the draft legislation will be “processed afresh for consultation with stakeholders” based on the feedback. It is significant that even BCI had critiqued the bill and objected to it prior to the bar council elections. BCI Chairman had said,“It is deeply concerning that the draft publication includes several substantial changes introduced by the Ministry of Law and certain officials. These changes appear to be a direct attempt to dismantle the very foundation of the Bar’s autonomy and independence. Lawyers across the country are alarmed, and widespread protest is inevitable unless these deliberate and oppressive provisions are promptly revised or removed.”
One of the most controversial provisions was Section 35A of the Bill. It aimed to ban strikes and boycotts by advocates. It stated that any form of abstention from work, or obstruction in court functioning, would be considered misconduct, punishable under the Advocates Act. Advocates go on strike to oppose unjust laws and arbitrary decisions. Can advocates be restrained from protesting against the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers into India, which is impermissible as per Supreme Court's decision in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018), wherein, it held that foreign lawyers could offer legal advice on a temporary basis but could not practice law in India. The Bill had also proposed to broaden the definition of ‘legal practitioner’ to include corporate lawyers and lawyers associated with foreign law firms. At present, this definition only included practicing advocates, pleaders, and revenue agents. The Bill had introduced additional provisions on lawyer misconduct, including:allowing clients to file misconduct complaints against lawyers if they faced financial loss due to legal proceedings;imposing monetary fines of up to ₹3 lakh on advocates found guilty of misconduct and;allowing state bar councils to impose fines of ₹50,000 on clients who file frivolous complaints.Advocates contended that holding them financially liable for client losses was unfair, as legal outcomes depend on judicial decisions, not just advocacy. Had there been no cal for strike by the advocates across the country the unjust law would have been enacted.
Notably, Members of the Bezawada Bar Association (BBA), Krishna Zilla Bar Federation, and the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council abstained from court duties on October 07, 2025, condemning the attack on Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the Supreme Court on Monday. They staged protest demanding immediate measures to guarantee the safety of the judiciary and the Bar. The advocates staged protests at the court complex and near the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar statue, raising slogans such as “Save Judiciary, Save the Nation.” Speaking on the occasion, BBA president A.K. Basha had said that if there was no protection even for the CJI, the safety of judges and lawyers across the country was a matter of grave concern. This holds true for judiciary in Bihar as well. On October 6, 2025 India's judiciary witnessed a disturbing incident when an attempt was made to attack Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) unanimously passed a resolution condemning the attack on CJI, describing it as a “reprehensible act” that is “utterly unbecoming of an officer of the court.” The SCBA had noted that such conduct undermines the mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar. The Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) also issued a resolution condemning the attack. BCI did not issue any order against the Krishna Zilla Bar Federation of Andhra Pradesh Bar.
Now Chandigarh Advocates have decided to abstain from work till May 13, 2026 to protest proposed Tenancy Act.
The Hindi reported Advocates boycott court proceedings in Tiruvannamalai, demanding air-conditioned halls, when members of the Bar Association, Advocates Association, and Lawyers Association jointly stayed away from court proceedings at the Combined District Court Complex in Tiruvannamalai town on April 24, 2026, demanding air-conditioned court halls in the complex.
Unlike in other States, the Bihar's advocate associations withdrew their call for boycott being law abiding entities after the intervention of BCI but their grievances have not been addressed as yet. BCI ought to ensure that their grievances are redressed at the earliest.
Role of BCI and State Bar Councils
Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right to the Bar Council of India to give directions to the State Bar Councils. Associations may be separate bodies but all advocates who are members of such associations are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils. Therefore, the Bar Councils can always control their conduct.
Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides that even in disciplinary matters the final appellate authority is the Supreme Court. If the Bar Councils do not rise to the occasion and perform their duties by taking disciplinary action on a complaint from a client against an advocate for non-appearance by reason of a call for strike or boycott, on an appeal the Supreme Court can and will.
Supreme Court and the Constitution of India
Responding to the contention that to go on strike/boycott courts is a fundamental right of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and it is a mode of peaceful representation to express the grievances by the lawyers’ community is concerned, the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M. R. Shah has held in District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.(2020) that "such a right to freedom of speech cannot be exercised at the cost of the litigants and/or at the cost of the Justice Delivery System as a whole. To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Nobody has the right to go on strike/boycott courts. Even, such a right, if any, cannot affect the rights of others and more particularly, the right of Speedy Justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution." This 27-page long judgement dated February 28, 2020 was authored by Justice Shah. Justice cited Supreme Court's earlier decision in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India & Anr. (2002) with approval but did not refer to the observation of the 5-Judge Constitution Bench which permitted "protest abstention from work" if the issue involves "dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench."
In Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India & Anr. (2002),
Supreme Court's 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India
Justice G.B. Patnaik and Justices Doraiswamy Raju, S. N. Variava and D.
M. Dharmadhikari had delivered a 22-page long judgement dated December
17, 2002, wherein it held that "only in the rarest of rare cases where
the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are
at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention
from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will
be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or
integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such
cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or
the District Judge before Advocate decide to absent themselves from
Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be
final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under
no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the
contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their
boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not
be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer,
holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a
strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay
costs which shall
be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss
suffered by him. 36) It is now hoped that with the above clarifications,
there will be no strikes and/or calls for boycott. It is hoped that
better sense will prevail and self restraint will be exercised."
Notably, in this case the Officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, C. R. Balaram had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he had stated that a ’National Conference’ of members of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils was held on 10th and 11th September, 1994 and a working paper was circulated on behalf of the Bar Council of India by V. C. Misra, Chairman, Bar Council of India, inter alia on the question of strike by lawyers.
In that working paper a note was taken that Bar Association had proceeded on strike on several occasions in the past, at times, State-wide or Nationwide, and ’while the profession does not like it as members of the profession are themselves the losers in the process’ and while it is not necessary to sit in judgment over the wider question whether members of the profession can at all go on strike or boycott of courts, it was felt that even if it is assumed that such a right enures to the members of the profession, the circumstances in which such a steps should be restored should be clearly indicated. Referring to an earlier case before the Delhi High Court it was stated that the Bar Council of India had made its position clear to the effect "(a) Bar Council of India is against resorting to strike excepting in rarest of rare cases involving the dignity and independence of the judiciary as well as of the Bar; and (b) whenever strikes becomes inevitable, efforts shall be made to keep it short and peaceful to avoid causing hardship to the litigant public." It was in response to the above that a consensus emerged at the Bar at the hearing of the matter that instead of the Court going into the wider question whether or not the members of the legal profession can resort to strike or abstain from appearing in cases in Court in which they are engaged, the Court may see the working of the interim arrangement and if that is found to be satisfactory it may perhaps not be required to go into the wider question at this stage. Pursuant to the discussion that took place at the last hearing on 30th November, 1994, the following suggestions have emerged as an interim measure consistent with the Bar Council of India’s thinking that except in the rarest of rare cases strike should not be resorted to and instead peaceful demonstration may be resorted to avoid causing hardship to the litigant public. The following interim measures were deemed sufficient:-
"(1) In the rare instance where any association of lawyers including statutory Bar Councils considers it imperative to call upon and/or advise members of the legal profession to abstain from appearing in courts on any occasion, it must be left open to any individual member/members of that association to be free to appear without let, fear or hindrance or any other coercive steps.
(2) No such member who appears in court or otherwise practices his legal profession, shall be visited with any adverse or penal consequences whatever, by any association of lawyers, and shall not suffer any expulsion or threat of expulsion therefrom.
(3) The above will not preclude other forms of protest by practising lawyers in court such as, for instance, wearing of arm bands and other forms of protest which in no way interrupt or disrupt the court proceedings or adversely affect the interest of the litigant. Any such form of protest shall not however be derogatory to the court or to the profession.
(4) Office-bearers of a Bar Association (including Bar Council) responsible for taking decisions mentioned in clause (1) above shall ensure that such decisions are implemented in the spirit of what is stated in clauses (1) and (2) and (3) above.
The reasons why strikes have been called by the Bar Associations and/or Bar Councils include (a) confrontation with the police and/or the legal administration; (b) grievances against the Presiding Officer;
(c) grievances against Judgments of Courts; (d) clash of interest between groups of lawyers and (e) grievances against the legislature or a legislation.
Notably, U. P. Bar Council had argued before the Constitution Bench that advocates had a right to go on strike or give a call for boycott. He submitted that Courts had no power of supervision over the conduct of lawyers. It submitted that Section 50 of the Advocates Act, 1950 repealed earlier provisions which had permitted Courts to control rights of Advocates to practice in Courts. It submitted that there are many occasions when lawyers require to go on strike or gave a call for boycott. It also submitted that the Supreme Court laying down that going on strike amounts to misconduct is of no consequence as the Bar Councils have been vested with the power to decide whether or not an Advocate has committed misconduct. It submitted that the Supreme Court cannot penalise any Advocate for misconduct as the power to discipline is now exclusively with the Bar Councils. It had submitted that it is for the Bar Councils to decide whether strike should be resorted to or not.
The Attorney General of India had submitted that strike by lawyers cannot be equated with strikes resorted to by other sections of society. He submitted that the basic difference is that members of the legal profession are officers of the Court. He submitted that they are obliged by the very nature of their calling to aid and assist in the dispensation of justice. He submitted that strike or abstention from work impaired the administration of justice and that the same was thus inconsistent with the calling and position of lawyers. He submitted that abstention from work, by lawyers, may be resorted to in the rarest of rare cases, namely, where the action protested against is detrimental to free and fair administration of justice such as there being a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary or a provision is enacted nullifying a judgment of a Court by an executive order or in case of supersession of judges by departure from the settled policy and convention of seniority. He submitted that even in cases where the action eroded the autonomy of the legal profession, e.g. dissolution of Bar Councils and recognized Bar Associations or packing them with government nominees a token strike of one day may be resorted to. He submitted even in the above situations the duration of abstention from work should be limited to a couple of hours or at the maximum one day. He submitted that the purpose should be to register a protest and not to paralyse the system. He suggested that alternative forms of protest can be explored, e.g., giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying banners and/or placards, wearing black arm-bands, peaceful protest marches outside court premises etc. He submitted that abstention from work for the redressal of a grievance should never be resorted to where other remedies for seeking redressal are available. He submitted that all attempts should be made to seek redressal from the concerned authorities. He submitted that where such redressal is not available or not forthcoming, the direction of the protest can be against that authority and should not be misdirected, e.g., in cases of alleged police brutalities Courts and litigants should not be targeted in respect of actions for which they are in no way responsible. He agreed that no force or coercion should be employed against lawyers who are not in agreement with the "strike call" and want to discharge their professional duties.
Chandigarh DBA lawyers to abstain from work till May 13 to protest proposed Tenancy Act
1 comment:
Any Rule or Decision on the point of recall of any movement is against the spirit of Democracy and threatening letter issued by any Association is against the Fundamental Rights of Constitution.
Post a Comment