Supreme Court of India ExCapt. Harish Uppal vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 December, 2002 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 739, 2003 (2) SCC 45, 2003 AIR SCW 43, 2003 (1) JKJ 449, 2003 (1) MADLJ106, 2002 (7) SLT 229, 2004 (5) COM LJ 15 SC, 2002 (9) SCALE 357, 2002 (4) LRI 815, (2002) 9 SCALE 357.2, (2004) 5 COMLJ 15, (2003) 1 ALLMR 1169 (SC), (2003) 2 JCR 73 (SC), 2003 (2) SRJ 540, 2003 (1) UPLBEC 649, 2003 (2) ALL CJ 972, 2003 (1) UJ (SC) 137, (2003) 1 MAD LJ 107, (2003) 1 ESC 36, (2003) 1 ALL WC 753, (2003) 1 INDLD 1, (2003) 1 KER LT 192, (2003) 1 MADLW(CRI) 82, (2003) 1 MAD LW 337, (2003) 3 MAHLR 326, (2003) 1 SCT 382, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 649, (2003) 1 SUPREME 192, (2003) 2 ALLCRIR 1828, (2003) 2 GCD 841 (SC), (2003) 2 CIVLJ 77, (2003) WRITLR 140, (2003) 4 BOM CR 148 CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 132 of 1988 PETITIONER: ExCapt. Harish Uppal RESPONDENT: Union of India & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2002 CJI, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S. N. VARIAVA, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (WITH W. P. (C) No. 394/93, W. P. (C) No. 821/90, W. P. (C) No. 320/93 and W. P. (C) 406/2000) S. N. VARIAVA, J. 1) All these Petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycotts of Court/s. In all these Petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us. 2) In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, an interim order came to be passed. This Order is reported in (1995) 1 Scale p.6. The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the Order. The relevant portion reads as under: "2. The Officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C. R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a 'National Conference' of members of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils was held on 10th and 11th September, 1994 and a working paper was circulated on behalf of the Bar Council of India by Mr. V. C. Misra, Chairman, Bar Council of India, inter alia on the question of strike by lawyers. In that working paper a note was taken that Bar Association had proceeded on strike on several occasions in the past, at times, Statewide or Nationwide, and 'while the profession does not like it as members of the profession are themselves the losers in the process' and while it is not necessary to sit in judgment over the wider question whether members of the profession can at all go on strike or boycott of courts, it was felt that even if it is assumed that such a right enures to the members of the profession, the circumstances in which such a steps should be restored should be clearly indicated. Referring to an earlier case before the Delhi High Court it was stated that the Bar Council of India had made its position clear to the effect "(a) Bar Council of India is against resorting to strike excepting in rarest of rare cases involving the dignity and independence of the judiciary as well as of the Bar; and (b) whenever strikes becomes inevitable, efforts shall be made to keep it short and peaceful to avoid causing hardship to the litigant public." (emphasis supplied). It was in response to the above that a consensus emerged at the Bar at the hearing of the matter that instead of the Court going into the wider question whether or not the members of the legal profession can resort to strike or abstain from appearing in cases in Court in which they are engaged, the Court may see the working of the interim arrangement and if that is found to be satisfactory it may perhaps not be required to go into the wider question at this stage. Pursuant to the discussion that took place at the last hearing on 30th November, 1994, the following suggestions have emerged as an interim measure consistent with the Bar Council of India's thinking 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. The learned counsel suggested that to begin with the following interim measures may be sufficient for the present: "(1) In the rare instance where any association of lawyers including statutory Bar Councils considers it imperative to call upon and/or advise members of the legal profession to abstain from appearing in courts on any occasion, it must be left open to any individual member/members of that association to be free to appear without let, fear or hindrance or any other coercive steps. (2) No such member who appears in court or ot