# Lawyers abstaining from appearing in Court C.L.No. 126/Admn. (G) dated December 9, 1994 Keeping in view the interests of the litigants and the heavy pendency of work in the subordinate courts, the…

- **Citation:** C.L.No. 112/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1994-11-23
- **Case number:** C.L.No. 112/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lawyers-abstaining-from-appearing-in-court-c-l-no-126-admn-g-dated-december-9-163992
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Lawyers abstaining from appearing in Court C.L.No. 126/Admn. (G) dated December 9, 1994 Keeping in view the interests of the litigants and the heavy pendency of work in the subordinate courts, the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges have been pleased to direct that in the event of lawyers abstaining from appearing in Court, going on strike or boycotting courts, the Presiding Officers are required, as far as possible, to sit in Court

## Text

529
2
3
8.
STRIKE BOYCOTTING OF COURTS BY THE LAWYERS
(i)
Concerning Strike or boycotting of Courts by the lawyers of the Judgeship
C.L.No. 112/Admn. ̳G'/dated November 23, 1994
I am directed to say that in the event of lawyers abstaining from appearing in
Court, going on strike or boycotting courts the Presiding Officers, as far as possible, sit in
court and dispose of matters listed before them in accordance with law.
I am further to ask you kindly to submit a Special report on the work done in all
the courts in your Sessions Division on the day which lawyers abstained from appearing
in court.
The instruction aforesaid may kindly be brought to the notice of all the Presiding
Officers working under you for information and compliance.
(ii)
Re : Lawyers abstaining from appearing in Court
C.L.No. 126/Admn. (G) dated December 9, 1994
Keeping in view the interests of the litigants and the heavy pendency of work in
the subordinate courts, the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges have been pleased to direct
that in the event of lawyers abstaining from appearing in Court, going on strike or
boycotting courts, the Presiding Officers are required, as far as possible, to sit in Court
and dispose of matters listed before them in accordance with law.
The Hon'ble Judges have further been pleased to direct that cases be listed for
hearing on all working days regardless of the call by the members of the Bar to go on
strike or to boycott courts.
It has further been directed that the District Judge shall submit a special report on
the work done in all the courts in the Sessions Division on the day on which lawyers
abstain from appearing in Court.
(iii) Compliance of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 11.1.1994 in
writ petition (Civil) Nos. 821 of 1990 and 320 of 1993
C.L. No. 61/LC/1296/ dated July 21, 1994
I am directed to send herewith a copy of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India dated 11.1.1994 passed by a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M.Ahmadi,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.P. Singh, with a copy of writ
petition Nos. 821/90 and 320/93 along with Public Notice and to request you to place the
notice and other connected papers on your respective Notice Board for information to Bar
Association and response, if any, to the petition, should be forwarded to the Registrar
(Judicial) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, through the President of Bar
530
Association who will collect and collate the same and forward the same with short
synopsis of the point raised.
WRIT PETITIONS (CIVIL) NOS.821/90 & 320/93
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India
I am directed to forward herewith for your information, necessary action and
compliance a certified copy of the Order of the Supreme Court as contained in the Record
of Proceedings of the Court dated 11th January, 1994 passed in the Writ Petitions abovementioned.
In view of the said Order, I am forwarding herewith 4 copies of the Public Notice
issued under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to request you to kindly
place the said notice on the Notice Boards for the information of the Members of the Bar.
You are further requested to kindly send the copies of the said Order and the
Public Notice to all the State Bar Councils and Bar Associations in the subordinate
Courts falling under your High Court's Jurisdiction. You are also requested to forward the
response, if any, to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court received by you through the
President of the High Court Bar Association who will collect and collate the same and
forward the same with a short synopsis of the points raised.
I am also to inform you that the Public Notice pursuant to the Order of the Court
will be published shortly in the News Papers viz. "Indian Express" (all Editions) and
―Hindustan Times" (all Editions) and the date of publication will be intimated to you later
on.
Please acknowledge receipt and carry out the directions as contained in the said
Order.
W.P. (Civil) Nos. 821/90 and 320/93
Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India
ORDER
This petition, brought under Article 32 of the Constitution, raises vital issues in
regard to the duties and obligations of the members of the legal profession relating to the
judicial system in general and the litigating public in particular and seeks the Court's
intervention to arrest the harm allegedly caused to the image and dignity of the judiciary
and the interest of the litigants on account of the members of the Bar proceeding on strike
from time to time in different parts of the country. The petitioner contends that the
lawyers constitute the intelligentsia of the country and their striking court work on one
pretext or the other, sometimes on trivial matters, thereby paralyzing the judicial system
results in untold misery to the litigants both in terms of avoidable harassment and
expenses, striking work, contends the petitioner, lawyers fail in their professional duty to
appear and conduct cases for which they are engaged and paid and thereby interfere with
the course of justice. Since litigants have a fundamental right to speedy justice as
observed in Husainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360) it is essential that
cases must proceed when they appear on board and should not ordinarily be adjourned on
account of the absence of the lawyers unless there are cogent reasons to do so. If cases
531
get adjourned time and again due to cessation of work by lawyers, it will in the result in
erosion of faith in the justice delivery system, which will harm the image and dignity of
the Court as well. On this refrain, the petitioner has sought certain directives from this
Court as enumerated in paragraph 15 of the petition. These include laying down of
guidelines, standards of professional conduct and permitting non-lawyers to appear as
provided by Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Besides the Union of India and the Attorney General of India, the Bar Council of
India and the Bar Association of Delhi, New Delhi and the High Court of Delhi as well as
the Bar Association of India are made parties to the petition. However, since the malice
of strikes is spread all over the country and is more pronounced in the subordinate courts,
it was thought desirable to issue a public notice in the nature of a notice under Order 1,
Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, so that the opinion of a cross section of the members of the
profession would be available. That would also make this petition representative in
character and any order made therein should be binding on all concerned. Since the Bar
Association of India is already, a party it would ordinarily have sufficed but Mr. Nariman
fairly stated that it is desirable that every Bar Association should have notice of the
present proceedings before further action is taken. Of course, the carriage of proceedings
will have to be in the hands of a few only as will be determined by the Court hereafter.
In view of the above we direct a public notice in the nature of one under Order 1,
Rule 8, C.P .C. to issue intimating all concerned and in particular the Bar Association and
State Bar Council all over the country of the pendency of the present petition. Copies of
the notice will be sent to the Registrars of all High Courts to place them on their notice
boards for the information of the members of the Bar. Response, if any, to the petition
should be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court through the President of the
High Court Bar Association who will collect and collate the same and forward the same
with a short synopsis of the points raised. This should be done not later than ten weeks
from the date of publication of the notice in the press. Notices may be printed in English
newspapers with circulation all over India as may be determined by the Registrar General
of this Court. The expenses for the notice will be borne by the Supreme Court Registry.
Let the matter be called on three weeks after the period of ten weeks allowed
earlier has elapsed.
Copies of notices may also be given to counsel who have entered appearance, if
demanded.
PUBLIC NOTICE
(Under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C.) Writ Petition (Civil) No.821 of 1990
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India
And
Writ Petition (Civil) No.320 of 1993
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Sri Sunil Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Whereas writ petitions above mentioned have been brought under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India raising vital issues in regard to the duties and obligations of the
532
members of the legal profession relating to the judicial system in general and the
litigating public in particular.
AND whereas the petitioners seek the court's intervention to arrest the harm
allegedly caused to the image and dignity of the judiciary and the interest of the litigants
on account of the members of the Bar proceeding on strike from time to time in different
parts of the country.
AND whereas the lawyers constitute the intelligentsia of the country and their
striking Court work on one pretext or the other, sometimes on trivial matters, thereby
paralyzing the judicial system, results in untold misery to the litigants in terms of both
avoidable harassment and expenses.
AND whereas by the striking work, the lawyers fail in their professional duty to
appear and conduct cases for which they are engaged and paid and thereby interfere with
the course of justice.
AND whereas by the litigants have a fundamental right to speedy justice as
observed in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360)
AND whereas it is essential that cases must proceed when they appear on board
and should not ordinarily be adjourned on account of the absence of the lawyers unless
there are cogent reasons to do so.
AND whereas if cases get adjourned time and again due to cessation of work by
lawyers, it will in the end result in erosion of faith in the justice delivery system, which
will harm the image and dignity of the Court as well.
AND whereas on this refrain the petitioners have sought certain directives from
this Court as enumerated in paragraph 15 of the writ petition No.821 of 1990 including
laying down of guidelines, standards of professional conduct and permitting non-lawyers
to appear as provided by Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
AND whereas the said Writ petitions came up for hearing before this Court on the
11th day of January, 1994 when the court was pleased to direct issue of a public notice in
the nature of a notice under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code to all concerned
so that opinion of a cross section of the members of the profession would be available
and would also make the petitions representative in character and any order made therein
should be binding on all concerned.
Notice is hereby given to all concerned that:
1.
The writ petitions above mentioned will be listed before the Court for hearing on
the 6th day of September, 1994 and will be taken by the Court on that day or on any other
subsequent date at 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as may be
convenient to the Court.
2.
The ̳responses', if any, to this notice should be sent not later than ten weeks from
the date of publication of the notice to the President of the respective High Court Bar
Associations who will collect and collate and forward the same with a short synopsis (in
English) of the points raised to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi, with seven extra copies for use of the Court.
533
3.
The responses should be in English, but if any response is in a language other than
English, it shall be accompanied by a translation thereof in English.
(iv)
Intimation to the Chairman Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh, whenever
Advocates resort to boycott or strike.
C.L. No. 20/IIIb-36/Admn. 'G' dated May 9, 1995
I am directed to say that whenever the Advocates resort to boycott or strike the
same shall also be intimated to the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh, Bar Council immediately
under intimation to the High Court.
No. 32 /2006/Admin 'G': Dated: 7.8. 2006.
The Bar Council of India, New Delhi has apprised to the Court that at its meeting
held on 8th and 9th April, 2006 considered the mode of addressing Judges of the Supreme
Court, High Court and Subordinate Courts and passed Resolution No. 58/2006.
In this, regard, I am directed to send herewith a copy of letter no. STBC (Cir .)
No. 15/2006, dated 13.06.2006 as well as letter No. STBC (Cir.) No. 11/2006, dated
20.04.2006 containing resolution no. 58/2006 referred to above for your information and
to request you to kindly bring the contents of the letter as also Resolution No.5812006 to
the notice of all the Judicial Officers working in the Judgeship under your supervision and
control for their information.
C.L. No. 38/2006/Admn. ―G‖, dated 19.9.2006
In modification of the Court's earlier Circular Letter Mo. 20/2006, dated
29.05.2006, I am directed to say that in furtherance while passing orders dated
25.07.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12458 of 2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 12458 of 2006. Purushlottam Giri v. Deputy Director Consolidation and others, the
Hon'ble Court is of the view that to streamline the details about lawyers practicing in a
district and in case of any suspicion about the veracity of details about a lawyer, the
details will be docketed in a common register which is to be maintained at one place in a
district which will serve as a nodal/model register to serve the requirements in a district.
The Hon'ble Court has been pleased to pass the following directions in this respect:
1.
The register about details of lawyers practicing in district courts shall be
maintained at the end of the district Judge and the same shall be prepared
under the supervision and control of the District Judge or any Additional
District Judge so authorized by the District Judge.
2.
Each and every practicing Advocate shall furnish requisite details about
himself by means of an application duly signed by him and such details
would include residential address, police station, postal address and
telephone number etc. besides the authenticated copy of enrolment and the
undertaking that he has not made any application anywhere else for enlisting
his name in the register aforesaid except the district in which he has been
practicing.
3.
The District Judge shall maintain complete record on the basis of such
record submitted by the Advocates as postulated in the amendment made in
the relevant Rules.