Strikes sometimes take the form of a non-violent action in protest for the wrongs that had been done after every other working area has been used up in an attempt to fight for equal rights.[1] In simple words, a strike refers to when one person decides not to go to work or perform any activity. Another way of defining a strike is where people unite and agree not to go to work. Various instances of strikes may occur from different causes.[2]

As stated in Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution, the right to strike is considered a Fundamental Right. However, the right to strike by lawyers is not covered within the purview of the fundamental right that forms an association. Advocates are officers of the courts and hence are under certain duties to be satisfied while upholding justice.

Recent years have witnessed numerous incidences of lawyers participating in strikes or protests that have sparked disagreements between the bar and the bench, yet to date, this incident has not been solved. The Bar and the bench are bound reciprocally to treat each other with courtesy, with an expectation that the Bar shall be respectful and that the court shall be attentive to issues raised by its members.

Why Advocates Go On A Strike?

1. The interests of the investigative body and the advocacy organization must have collided in a kind of conflict.
2. All improper actions in the part of law enforcement officer.
3. All legislations passed by federal or state authority against the interest of the Bar.
4. A few inconsistencies in the court's benches' constitution.
5. Or when there is an issue that comes before it, which affects the general public and is of national or state importance.

One of the grounds that attorneys have sought to justify a strike is violence against attorneys by police and others. Another has been a strike of advocates who make their livelihood practicing India's criminal and civil procedural codes in court. The elect of some judges have often been boycotted en masse by advocates, sometimes at the behest of the judges themselves. There are several other situations too, like when a workday falls on the weekend or when seats were not available for attorneys, etc.

Whether Advocates Have Right To Strike?

Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian constitution grants its citizens the freedom of association within its borders, which includes the right to strike. There exist limitations to this freedom, as stated in Article 19(4), according to which such associations cannot hinder national sovereignty, public order, or morality.

In their many decisions, the Honorable Supreme Court and High Courts held from time to time that advocates have no right to strike and that instead of granting such a right to them, care should be taken to ensure that their grievances are recognized and redressed forthwith. Advocates are not permitted to exercise their right to strike because of the very indispensable role that they play in the administration of justice. If the source of justice is still isolated, then how would people enjoy their constitutionally protected right to justice under Article 21? It is the obligation of an advocate to protect the interest of his client by all fair and reasonable methods without looking towards the consequences for others[3].

The Indian Supreme Court has very clearly gone to state in Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India[4] that the Bar Council of India should take action swiftly against any group of lawyers who call for a strike. The Supreme Court held in 2002 that advocates can do protest only up to one day in extreme situations where dignity and integrity of the Bar is threatened.

The oppressed are fighting for their rights while it is the underprivileged class that suffers at the hands of disruptions in the judicial apparatus. In the recent past, the Bar Council has coined several interpretations about the term "rarest of rare cases," which had added to the several number of times a fresh set of lawyers have called for strikes. Even though the Supreme Court has held a number of decisions declaring lawyer strikes illegal, lawyer strikes still take place frequently.

Justification For Denying Lawyers The Right To Strike

The judiciary's primary responsibility is to protect those who are seeking justice through self-help, and coordination and cooperation between its various branches are requisite in achieving the said objective. The core right to a speedy trial is available under Article 21 of the constitution; any flaw in the system will be a derogation to that right.

Accordingly, strikes call by lawyers adversely affect the judiciary's ability to function. The prolonged strike and demonstrations make it hard to dispense justice, which delays cases trials and ultimately prolongs their pendency. The Supreme Court often delivers judgments that invoke the right of lawyers to strike and direct litigants to work hard and effectively for justice.

Strike Considered As A Misconduct

Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India & Anr.[5]
In this case, the petitioners argued that strikes are only recognized in industrial disputes and lawyers owe the court and not for it being exploited. They argued that the court should intervene with lawyers who argue for strikes because these lawyers exhibit contempt in the court. They suggested that the court should put standards for lawyers who appear and limit their opportunities to practice in courts. The respondent argued that lawyers are allowed to join strikes or boycotts, but the court cannot hold them as misbehaviour because the Bar Council has the right to govern lawyers. The court declared that lawyers are not permitted to strike or boycott, including token strikes.

Protests can only be expressed through press releases, television appearances, signboards, posters, bands on the arms, and peaceful marches. The court found that neither the Bar Council nor the Bar Association can sanction the calling of meetings to discuss going on strike. The court, however proposed additional regulations be made under Section 34 of the Advocates Act wherein lawyer strikes are viewed as obstructing justice administration and could bring about advocates being prohibited from appearing before district or High Courts.

Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Subhash Kapoor[6]
In this case, it was ruled that there is trust and confidence between the client and the lawyer who stands for him. The provisions of the act that advocates enact do not legalize the process of obstructing the process of a court which takes place to collect justice should their strike take place. Law is no trade, and briefs of the plaintiffs are not things.

Resolutions to address Lawyers' Grievances:

It is just as important to safeguard the rights of attorneys in order to maintain a fair legal system.[7] As per Section 7 clause (d) of the Advocate's Act of 1961[8], the Bar Council of India has the duty to safeguard the rights, privileges, and interests of advocates. Therefore, it is important to listen to lawyers' complaints and address them promptly with appropriate action. The 266th report of the Law Commission of India proposes that a Grievance Redressal Committee for Advocates, headed by a District Judge, be set up at every district headquarters to address common issues.

To tackle the concerns raised by supporters and improve their impact, the High Court has the power to issue a circular under Article 235 of the Constitution. If the Bar has a complaint against a judicial officer, they have the right to bring it before the Chief Justice of the appropriate High Court. By considering these suggestions, advocates' grievances can be viewed more expansively, ultimately helping to decrease the risk of lawyer strikes. [9]

Conclusion
The right to strike is not absolute but rests on specific conditions. All citizens of India are privileged with the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, there are restrictions to the manner in which the objectives of Article 19 should be construed. Whereas "strike" is a broader term for expressing wants and needs. Law officers are entitled to go on strike only in the most exceptional circumstances, as quoted by the Indian Supreme Court in the Ex Capt Harris Case.

Specific procedures have to be adopted to deal with legal issues. The Bar Council and the courts are the lifeline of a lawyer. They should participate actively in the selection of lawyers' cases and stop them from demanding a strike. Some other procedures, including an independent body or a team discussion, can also exist. Lawyers should not go on a strike as it would hamper the entire legal system. They must be aware of it and adhere to the rule. Moreover, the software must be compatible with them. These steps should not cause any harm to the clients.

End Notes:

1. Shrabani Acharya & Gaurav Ranna, Advocates' Right To Strike: In Light Of Ex-Captain Harrish Uppal V. Union Of India & Anr, Journal On Contemporary Issues Of Law [JCIL] Volume 6 Issue 6
2. Ms. Swati Shalini, Avoidance Of Strike By Lawyers, vol 3 issue 9, Law Mantra
3. Supra, note 1
4. AIR 2005 SC 4442
5. (2003) 2 SCC 45
6. 2001 (1) SCC 118
7. Kirty Ranjan, Strikes By Advocates In India, Legal Service India E-Journal
8. Section I, Chapter II, Part VI Bar Council of India Rules
9. Draft of The Advocate (Amendment) Bill, 2017