The Allahabad High Court recently raised concerns about the trend of lawyers and bar associations in Uttar Pradesh holding condolence meetings at 10 a.m., which results in a loss of court working hours.

The Court stated that the judiciary is already grappling with a significant backlog of cases, and the organization of condolence meetings and strikes during court hours only exacerbates the delays in case disposal.

"We are at a loss to understand as to why only in the State of Uttar Pradesh the lawyers have to call condolence meet at 10:00 a.m. and thereby obstruct the Court working for the whole day. The judiciary is already facing backlog of huge cases for disposal and any further delay caused due to strike or condolence is wholly uncalled for," the order dated September 25 stated.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chowdhary was hearing a contempt of court case against bar bodies when it raised concerns about the violation of a resolution passed by the State Bar Council. This resolution mandates that condolence meetings should take place at 3:30 p.m. The Court also highlighted the problem of frequent strikes by lawyers, which disrupt judicial proceedings.

“We hope and trust that lawyers in the district courts would follow the resolution of the State Bar Council to hold condolence meet at 3:30 p.m., so that the entire day’s work is not obstructed. We also emphasize that the office bearers of respective Bar Associations have to play the lead role in smooth functioning of district courts, and any call for strike by such lawyers will be viewed as an act in defiance of the directions of the Supreme Court, which specifically prohibits holding of strikes,” the Court stated.

The Court initiated the contempt of court case based on a report from the District Judge of Prayagraj. This report revealed that between July 2023 and April 2024, lawyers at the Prayagraj District Court abstained from work or went on strike for 127 out of 218 working days, resulting in the court being operational for only 41.74% of that period. Subsequently, notices were issued to the office bearers and advocates involved.

An intervention application was submitted by Satyaketu Singh, a lawyer with 47 years of practice in Ghaziabad. Singh stated that he has consistently opposed strike calls by the Bar Association and has actively resisted such actions from their office bearers. He reported that in the past year, strikes occurred in Ghaziabad courts on 80 to 100 days, and the District Judge frequently circulates strike resolutions to all judges, leading to early court closures and leaving litigants uncertain about their cases.

After considering these submissions, the Court remarked that the culture of frequent strikes not only tarnishes the reputation of the legal profession but also undermines the credibility of the justice delivery system in the eyes of the public. The Court emphasized the importance of lawyers reflecting on their actions to restore public trust in the legal profession. It acknowledged that while most lawyers across various districts oppose strikes, a small group continues to resort to this measure, disregarding the Supreme Court’s rulings that have prohibited such actions by lawyers.

“Since we have already issued directions in our previous order for enforcing the judgment of Supreme Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 and other similar cases, we hope and trust that the lawyers will see the cause in correct perspective and would desist from resorting to strike,” the Court said.

The Court also expressed hope that lawyers in the district courts would adhere to the State Bar Council's resolution to hold condolence meetings at 3:30 p.m., ensuring that the day’s work is not disrupted. Additionally, the Bench stated that office bearers of bar associations who initiate strikes will be personally held accountable. The matter is scheduled for another hearing on October 22.