According to the Supreme Court's long-standing rulings, the legal profession's right to access the courts is violated and justice is obstructed when lawyers go on strike.
The Supreme Court vehemently denounced lawyer strikes on Monday, saying that the justice delivery system is compromised by lawyers' absences from work and that those who engage in them should not be allowed to practice law.
The Supreme Court vehemently denounced lawyer strikes on Monday, saying that the justice delivery system is compromised by lawyers' absences from work and that those who engage in them should not be allowed to practice law.
The court made its scathing comments when reviewing the Faizabad Bar Association's behavior, which included 66 days of absence from work out of 134 between November 2023 and April 2024.
Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan's bench had serious concerns about the Faizabad lawyers' conduct during the hearing.
Out of 134 days, they missed 66 days of work due to their absence. Do they possess any legal authority to hold the bar association's license? Always keep in mind that they are a component of the system. They're attempting to intimidate the district judge and the supreme court... We are alerting all bar councils across the nation, including them. The bench underlined the seriousness of the matter by saying, "We are putting them on notice."
The bar association's senior advocate, Rakesh Khanna, made an effort to make it clear that the attorneys weren't on strike. The bench, however, was unmoved and insisted on strict sanctions. Khanna was informed by the bench, "We want personal affidavits of all your office bearers."
The court order required the bar association to get an assurance from each and every one of its members, promising not to use strike action ever again.
Each office bearer must submit an affidavit to the district judge, high court, and supreme court promising never to pass a resolution authorizing a member to refrain from work after receiving this commitment from every member. The order further stated that they should file a grievance with the district judge or the high court's administrative judge.
Khanna requested a stay of the high court's judgment, which established a panel of attorneys to take over the bar association's business and hold elections for its governing council by December 2024, but the bench refused to give relief. The high court further declared that the association would be charged with suo motu contempt in the event that the then-bar body called for a strike.
The top court's order won't be overturned. There is a committee that the high court setup. You will not be permitted to work in the interim. What you have been doing is pitiful and really unsettling. Since granting a stay would undermine the confidence of both the district judiciary and the high court, we will not grant one. The bench emphasized that despite the bar association's actions, the high court has behaved with great poise.
The bench highlighted the effects of these strikes on the larger legal system, stressing that even when witnesses and litigants have overcome major financial and administrative obstacles, they frequently discover that attorneys are preventing courts from operating. Noting that the Supreme Court Bar Association has never used strikes, the judges praised the organization as a model of professionalism and questioned how attorneys who participate in such disruptive practices can be allowed to practice law. On September 13, the court will take up the case once more.
The Supreme Court has routinely concluded that lawyer strikes are unlawful and unethical because they impede the administration of justice and infringe litigants' rights to access the courts, beginning with its ruling in the Harish Uppal case in 2002.
© 2026 Bharati News | All Right Reserved
