Content Provider | Supreme Court of India |
---|---|
e-ISSN | 30484839 |
Language | English |
Access Restriction | NDLI |
Subject Keyword | 1961 Advocates Act |
Content Type | Text |
Resource Type | Law Judgement |
Jurisdiction | India |
Case Type | Writ Petition |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Disposal Nature | Petition Disposed Off |
Headnote | Advocates Act, 1961: Strike or cal/for boycott of Courts by lawyers-Held: Lawyers have no such right-Instead peaceful demonstration may be resorted to-Further, courts may overlook prates/ on an Issue involving dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and Judiciary provided it does not exceed one day. Advocate-Role of-Whether could resort to strike or call for boycott of Courts-Held: No, since Advocate has obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of Court and owes a duty to his client-Strike interferes with administration of justice-Advocate cannot disrupt Court proceedings. Sections 34 and 48A-Scope of-Discussed. In writ petition No.821 of 1991 an interim order was passed to the effect 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 [(1995) 1 Scale p.6]. It was suggested that Bar Council of India incorporate certain clauses in the Bar Council of India (Conduct & Disciplinary) Rules. However the Bar Council of India did not incorporate it in the Bar Council of India (Conduct and Disciplinary) Rules and the phenomenon of going on strikes at the slightest provocation is on the increase. Hence the need to decide whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of courts. Amicus Curiae submitted that this Court has declared strikes illegal; that even a call for strike is bad; that it is time that the Bar Council of India as well as various State Bar Councils monitor strikes within their jurisdiction and ensure that there are no call for strike and/or boycotts; and that in all cases where redressal can be obtained by going to a Court of law there should be no strike. Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.406 of 2000 contended that Courts have declared that a strike is illegal; that lawyers who are officers of the Court cannot use strikes as a means to blackmail courts or clients; that the call for strike by lawyers is in effect a call to breach the contract which lawyers have with their clients and if he does not attend Court it would amount to professional misconduct and also contempt of Court; that Courts should cast responsibility on Bar Councils and Bar Associations to see that there is no strike and/or call for boycott and should also take action against Committee members for giving such calls on the basis that they have committed contempt of Court; that Committee members of a Bar Association or Council should refuse any requisition calling a meeting to consider a strike; that it cannot have any legal or moral right to call a meeting to consider a call for an illegal act; that Court should frame rules regulating the right of lawyers to appear before Court and also against lawyers who misconducts himself and commits contempt of court by going on strike; and that this Court should issue a mandamus to Bar Councils to frame rules in consonance with the interim directions which have been passed by this Court. Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.821 of 1990 supported the aforesaid contentions and further contended that Court should also declare that lawyers who do not want to participate in a strike should not be coerced by other lawyers or Committee members, which can be by physical prevention from appearance, by a threat to withdraw facility or to terminate the membership of Associations and if any such threats are given or any such coercion is used then Court must punish the party so coercing for contempt. The Attorney General of India and most of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations inter alia contended that strike by lawyers cannot be equated with strikes resorted to by other sections of society; that strike or abstention from work impairs the administration of justice and is inconsistent with the calling and position of lawyers; that abstention from work by lawyers, may be resorted to where the action protested against is detrimental to free and fair administration of justice; that cases where the action eroded the autonomy of the legal profession, token strike for one day may be resorted to; that alternative forms of protest can be explored; that abstention from work for the redressal of a grievance should never be resorted to where other remedies for seeking redressal are available; that ail attempts should be made to seek redressal from the concerned authorities; 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; 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; that they were not in favour of strikes and/or call for strikes; that their Associations had not gone on strike at all and/or only on token strikes of not more than one day; that consensus at the Bar was that lawyers cannot and should not resort to strike in order to vent their grievances where a legal remedy was available; that even where a legal remedy was not available strike should be resorted to when the dignity of the Court or the Bar was at stake that also only a token strike for one day; that other methods of protests must be resorted to, viz. passing of resolutions, making representations, taking out silent processions without causing disturbance to Court work, holding dharnas or relay fast and wearing white ribbons; and that there must be Committees for redressing grievances of lawyers. Bar Council of U.P. contended that lawyers have a right to go on strike or give a call for boycott; that Courts have no power of supervision over the conduct of lawyers by virtue of Section 50 of Advocates Act, 1950; that this 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 and this Court cannot penalise any Advocate for the same; and that it is for the Bar Councils to decide whether strike should be resorted to or not. |
Judge | Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava |
Neutral Citation | 2002 INSC 523 |
Petitioner | Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal |
Respondent | Union Of India And Anr. |
SCR | [2002] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 186 |
Judgement Date | 2002-12-17 |
Case Number | 132 |
National Digital Library of India (NDLI) is a virtual repository of learning resources which is not just a repository with search/browse facilities but provides a host of services for the learner community. It is sponsored and mentored by Ministry of Education, Government of India, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT). Filtered and federated searching is employed to facilitate focused searching so that learners can find the right resource with least effort and in minimum time. NDLI provides user group-specific services such as Examination Preparatory for School and College students and job aspirants. Services for Researchers and general learners are also provided. NDLI is designed to hold content of any language and provides interface support for 10 most widely used Indian languages. It is built to provide support for all academic levels including researchers and life-long learners, all disciplines, all popular forms of access devices and differently-abled learners. It is designed to enable people to learn and prepare from best practices from all over the world and to facilitate researchers to perform inter-linked exploration from multiple sources. It is developed, operated and maintained from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.
Learn more about this project from here.
NDLI is a conglomeration of freely available or institutionally contributed or donated or publisher managed contents. Almost all these contents are hosted and accessed from respective sources. The responsibility for authenticity, relevance, completeness, accuracy, reliability and suitability of these contents rests with the respective organization and NDLI has no responsibility or liability for these. Every effort is made to keep the NDLI portal up and running smoothly unless there are some unavoidable technical issues.
Ministry of Education, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT), has sponsored and funded the National Digital Library of India (NDLI) project.
Sl. | Authority | Responsibilities | Communication Details |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education |
Sanctioning Authority | https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives |
2 | Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project | https://www.iitkgp.ac.in |
3 | National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project | Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in |
4 | Project PI / Joint PI | Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project |
Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon |
5 | Website/Portal (Helpdesk) | Queries regarding NDLI and its services | support@ndl.gov.in |
6 | Contents and Copyright Issues | Queries related to content curation and copyright issues | content@ndl.gov.in |
7 | National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club) | Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach | clubsupport@ndl.gov.in |
8 | Digital Preservation Centre (DPC) | Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books | dpc@ndl.gov.in |
9 | IDR Setup or Support | Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops | idr@ndl.gov.in |