Background:
This case led to a significant judgment as the writ petition was filed in Allahabad High Court in order to bring attention to a concerning situation that involves the disruption of court operations in Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia. Additionally, it raises serious concerns that the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh should take immediate action to address. Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra led the court in emphasizing that strikes within the legal system are not like those that occur in industrial contexts.

Unlike trade unions, where strikes are a tool for labor bargaining, in the legal profession, such strikes severely disrupt justice delivery. The court emphasized how these frequent disruptions harm the legal system and plaintiffs, especially those from underprivileged backgrounds.

• Regular Lawyer Strikes: Lawyers in Rasra, Ballia were regularly on strike, not just for legal or professional concerns but for numerous unconnected causes, including the deaths of family members of advocates and even local political personalities. The judiciary's ability to carry out its duties and the administration of justice were severely hampered by the multiple delays in court hearings that these strikes caused.
   
• The petitioner's grievance: The petitioner, Jang Bahadur Kushwaha, contended that the strikes had caused needless delays in his legal case and had negatively affected his access to justice. He submitted substantial evidence, highlighting the number of days lost due to strikes and demonstrating that they were often held for reasons unconnected to legal practice.
   
• In defense of the acts: The State and the Bar Association claimed that some of the strikes were called in support of statewide legal protests that the U.P. Bar Council had started. But some strikes were too frequent and too insignificant to be well justified.
   
• Court's Observation:
  • Effect of Strikes on Justice: The court stressed that strikes by attorneys impede the administration of justice as a whole. This has a serious effect on litigants, many of whom come from poorer and more vulnerable social groups and depend on the legal system to resolve their disputes. These strikes cause the courts to backlog a great deal of cases and cause protracted case delays.
     
  • Comparing Lawyer Strikes to Industrial Strikes: The court made the observation that lawyer strikes are not comparable to industrial strikes, which occur often when trade unions go on strike to negotiate with their employers. In contrast, lawyers are professionals who serve a greater social purpose; as such, their retirement from the legal system affects not just their clients but also the legal system as a whole.
     
  • Supreme Court decisions cited:
    • In the 2003 case of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, it was determined that lawyer strikes are improper and inconsistent with their obligation to protect the law.
    • In Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018), the Supreme Court ruled against lawyer strikes and demanded prompt sanctions against those who partake in them.
    • In the 1998 case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that attorneys who have accepted a brief are obligated to appear in court, regardless of any strike action.
       
  • Committee for Redress of Grievances: The Allahabad High Court announced that it has established a Grievance Redressal Committee, with members including the District Judge, Additional District Judge, and Bar Association representatives, to resolve legitimate complaints from attorneys. The goal of this was to provide people a proper avenue to discuss any problems without using strikes. The court recommended attorneys to use this committee as a channel for redress rather than abstaining from legal proceedings.
     
  • Amounts Due to Striking Attorneys: The Advocates Act, 1961, which outlines procedures for disciplining attorneys who engage in misconduct, was emphasized by the court. If a lawyer engages in unprofessional behavior, the Bar Council is empowered to take action, which may include removing their names from the list. The ruling issued a warning that attorneys who neglect to appear in court may face legal repercussions for failing to uphold their professional duties to their clients.

Judgement of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court declared that the court is not an industrial enterprise where such acts can be justified as a form of bargaining, taking a strong stand against the disruption caused by lawyer strikes. The court reaffirmed advocates' legal duty to carry out their responsibilities and determined that strikes negatively impact the efficiency of the judicial system by adding to the backlog of cases.

The court underlined the legal profession's duty to maintain the efficient operation of the courts while acknowledging the great harm the strikes caused to plaintiffs. It was observed that strikes, which postpone court procedures and provide wrongdoers reprieve, only temporarily delight those seeking to evade justice.

The judgment serves as a stern reminder to the legal fraternity about their role in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and avoiding actions that harm the public interest.

Conclusion:
The Jang Bahadur Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. case emphasizes the negative impact of lawyer strikes on the justice system in India. The Allahabad High Court ruled that such strikes are illegal and unprofessional, urging the legal community to seek redress through established grievance mechanisms rather than boycotting courts. The judgment is an important reminder of the responsibility that lawyers hold in ensuring justice is delivered timely, especially to the most vulnerable sections of society.

Written By: Akshi Gupta - Amity Law School, Noida