Case Name: Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal V. Union Of India and Others (AIR 2003 SC 739)
– Whether The Lawyers Have A Right To Strike Preksha Goyal , 17 April 2021
Court : Supreme Court of India
Brief : This is a landmark judgment in which the court has stated that lawyers have no right to strike or give a call for the boycott of court.
Citation :
REFERENCE: W.P. (civil) 132 of 1988
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17th December 2002
REFERENCE: W.P. (civil) 132 of 1988
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17th December 2002
JUDGES:
Justice S.N. Variava,
Justice Doraiswamy Raju,
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari
Justice S.N. Variava,
Justice Doraiswamy Raju,
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari
PARTIES
· Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Petitioner)
· Union of India and another (Respondent)
· Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Petitioner)
· Union of India and another (Respondent)
SUMMARY
It was held that lawyers reserve no right to strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a symbolic strike. They can protest, if required, must be only by giving press articulations, TV interviews, completing of Court premises standards and additionally notices, wearing black or white or any shading armbands, peaceful protest outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas and so forth.
It was held that lawyers reserve no right to strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a symbolic strike. They can protest, if required, must be only by giving press articulations, TV interviews, completing of Court premises standards and additionally notices, wearing black or white or any shading armbands, peaceful protest outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas and so forth.
AN OVERVIEW
The petitioner, in the present case, was an ex-army officer.
In 1972, the petitioner was posted in Bangladesh, where some accusation which was related to embezzlement was put on him and he was brought to the military court in India.
Charges against him were outlined and he was court-martialed from his post and titles alongside imprisonment for 2 years.
He filed a pre-affirmation application in a civil Court to audit the matter and he got a reply from the court after an extensive stretch of 11 years when the limitation period of the survey has been expired.
It was subsequently discovered that documents along with the application got misplaced during a vicious strike by advocates.
A special petition was filed by the petitioner to announce strikes by advocates illicit.
The petitioner, in the present case, was an ex-army officer.
In 1972, the petitioner was posted in Bangladesh, where some accusation which was related to embezzlement was put on him and he was brought to the military court in India.
Charges against him were outlined and he was court-martialed from his post and titles alongside imprisonment for 2 years.
He filed a pre-affirmation application in a civil Court to audit the matter and he got a reply from the court after an extensive stretch of 11 years when the limitation period of the survey has been expired.
It was subsequently discovered that documents along with the application got misplaced during a vicious strike by advocates.
A special petition was filed by the petitioner to announce strikes by advocates illicit.
ISSUES
The issue analyzed by the court - Whether lawyers have a right to strike?
The issue analyzed by the court - Whether lawyers have a right to strike?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Constitution of India:
1. Article 226: Powers given to the court to issue writs.
2. Article 145: defines the rules of court.
The Advocates Act:
1. Section 7: Functions of the Bar Council of India.
2. Section 30: defines the right of advocates to practice.
3. Section 34: Powers given to the High Court to make rules.
4. Section 38: Appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution of India:
1. Article 226: Powers given to the court to issue writs.
2. Article 145: defines the rules of court.
The Advocates Act:
1. Section 7: Functions of the Bar Council of India.
2. Section 30: defines the right of advocates to practice.
3. Section 34: Powers given to the High Court to make rules.
4. Section 38: Appeal to the Supreme Court.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The Petitioner presented that strike as a method for collective bargaining was perceived only in industrial disputes and lawyers who were officials of the Court could not utilize strikes as a way to extort the Courts or the clients.
They further contended that the call for strike by lawyers was in actuality a call to break the agreements which lawyers have with their clients. Then again, the legal fraternity presented that lawyers retained the right to strike in uncommon cases to get their interests imparted in the case of improper treatment being given to them.
The Supreme Court stated that lawyers reserve no right to go on strike or give a call for the boycott of court, not even on a symbolic strike.
The protest, if any is required, must be made by giving press explanations, TV interviews completing of the Court premises standards and additionally notices, wearing dark or white or any shading arm groups, tranquil dissent walks outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay facts and so on.
The Court on acknowledging the fact that even those lawyers willing to go to the Court couldn't go to inferable from the strike or the boycott asked the lawyers to intensely decline to submit to any call for strike or boycott court.
The Court also stated that no lawyer might be visited with any adverse consequence by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion are often held call at an occasion of his refusal to attend to the strike or boycott.
The Court also saw that an Advocate is an official of the Court and appreciates uncommon status in the public arena. They have commitments and obligations to guarantee smooth working of the Court and they additionally owe an obligation to their customer.
Strikes are meddled with the organization of equity, disturb Court procedures, and put the interest of their customers at risk. Thus the Court has imposed a ban on strikes by lawyers.
The Petitioner presented that strike as a method for collective bargaining was perceived only in industrial disputes and lawyers who were officials of the Court could not utilize strikes as a way to extort the Courts or the clients.
They further contended that the call for strike by lawyers was in actuality a call to break the agreements which lawyers have with their clients. Then again, the legal fraternity presented that lawyers retained the right to strike in uncommon cases to get their interests imparted in the case of improper treatment being given to them.
The Supreme Court stated that lawyers reserve no right to go on strike or give a call for the boycott of court, not even on a symbolic strike.
The protest, if any is required, must be made by giving press explanations, TV interviews completing of the Court premises standards and additionally notices, wearing dark or white or any shading arm groups, tranquil dissent walks outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay facts and so on.
The Court on acknowledging the fact that even those lawyers willing to go to the Court couldn't go to inferable from the strike or the boycott asked the lawyers to intensely decline to submit to any call for strike or boycott court.
The Court also stated that no lawyer might be visited with any adverse consequence by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion are often held call at an occasion of his refusal to attend to the strike or boycott.
The Court also saw that an Advocate is an official of the Court and appreciates uncommon status in the public arena. They have commitments and obligations to guarantee smooth working of the Court and they additionally owe an obligation to their customer.
Strikes are meddled with the organization of equity, disturb Court procedures, and put the interest of their customers at risk. Thus the Court has imposed a ban on strikes by lawyers.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court of India concluded that the strike by an advocate is considered unlawful and illicit. A strike might be allowed in the most extraordinary of the uncommon situations where respectability, regard, and working of the courts are at the stake. A silent disappointment can be showed or a meeting to the press and media can be given, till the time it does not affect the working of the courts.
Reference
The Supreme Court of India concluded that the strike by an advocate is considered unlawful and illicit. A strike might be allowed in the most extraordinary of the uncommon situations where respectability, regard, and working of the courts are at the stake. A silent disappointment can be showed or a meeting to the press and media can be given, till the time it does not affect the working of the courts.
Reference
No comments:
Post a Comment