8 Nov 2023 5:47 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 7) issued notice to the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association after the high court’s registrar general wrote a letter alleging that the members of the bar association had abstained from work on account of an advocate’s death.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was presiding over contempt proceedings initiated against lawyers found to have engaged in violence during a strike in Odisha last year. The strike, called over a long-standing demand for a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court in the western part of the state, at Sambalpur, took a violent turn as massive clashes erupted between lawyers and the police. In response, a bench headed by Justice Kaul passed orders to the state government and the law enforcement agency to take stringent actions against the striking lawyers. Apart from the Bar Council of India suspending the license of the concerned advocates, several police arrests were also made.
In a previous hearing, the court, which has consistently issued directives against lawyers’ strikes and come down heavily on any abstentions from work, expressed dissatisfaction with a practice prevalent in the eastern state of suspending court work as a mark of respect for deceased lawyers. On the last occasion, while serving notice to a bar association in Odisha after it abstained from court work for a day on grounds of a member’s death, the bench repeated that judicial work cannot be brought to a standstill even though a lawyer’s death is a tragic event.
After the bar association in Odisha, notice was served on Tuesday to a bar association in Himachal Pradesh. Acting on a letter by the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s registrar-general alleging a day’s abstention from work, the court sought the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association’s response. Justice Kaul pronounced –
This is not the first time that the apex court has forced striking lawyers back to work or taken critical notice of their abstention. Last year, the court monitored the strike at Sambalpur over the demand for a permanent bench in the western district and issued strictures. More recently, notice was issued to the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association at Jaipur Bench over the non-appearance of advocates due to a strike.
There are several such instances of the judiciary expressing exasperation with lawyers’ strikes. In April, the Supreme Court notably requested all high courts to constitute grievance redressal committees comprising the chief justice and two other senior judges, one from the Bar and another from services. This order was passed in a suo motu case regarding rampant strikes in bar associations across the country leading to massive disruption of the court’s work.
Case Details
M/s PLR Projects Private Limited v. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited & Ors. | Diary No. 33859 of 2022