The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to submit a comprehensive report on the actions taken by State Bar Councils in the past year against lawyers who have participated in strikes or boycott court proceedings.
This report will also include information on the ongoing strike being observed by members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) in protest against the transfer of Justice Gaurang Kanth to the Calcutta High Court.
Additionally, the BCI was instructed to file an affidavit providing details of the draft rules it has formulated regarding disciplinary measures that can be taken against lawyers who engage in strikes.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia passed the order while reaffirming that advocates cannot be allowed to disrupt court proceedings and hinder the administration of justice.
“You can have a difference of views. Not necessary that people have to think alike. But like we have said before, you cannot boycott courts of law, stop people from getting bail or the administration of justice,” Justice Kaul stated
The bench adjourned the matter after two weeks.
The bench was hearing a contempt petition, filed by an NGO, Common Cause, seeking action against lawyers who boycott court work. The petitioners were represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
In May, the Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Top Court that representatives from State Bar Councils across the country had held a meeting to discuss amending norms for disciplinary action against lawyers participating in strikes.
Previously, the Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the BCI’s failure to finalize disciplinary norms, stating that it may have no choice but to directly impose penalties on lawyers who boycott court work.
In January, the Apex Court expressed disappointment with the BCI for the delay in implementing concrete measures to prevent strikes by lawyers nationwide.
During the 2019 hearing, it was revealed that the BCI was not enforcing its own resolutions or addressing the need for disciplinary action. The Court directed the BCI to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing the pending disciplinary matters nationwide, including those before State Bar Councils.
In December of the same year, the Court criticized the BCI for its inability to prevent lawyers from going on strike.
In another case, in April of this year, the Top Court directed the establishment of a grievance redressal committee at the High Court level to address lawyers’ grievances. BCI Chairperson and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra informed the Court that draft rules had been prepared and would be submitted for consideration.
