Protests cannot infringe the rights of others: SC | India News
Uttarakhand’s lawyers had moved the SC alleging that the HC verdict violated their fundamental right to freedom of expression to strike on strike to protest against the problems that concern them. They said it was a peaceful mode of representation to express complaints from the community of lawyers.
Rejecting the arguments, a bank of judges Arun Mishra and M R Shah said: “Such right to freedom of expression cannot be exercised at the expense of the litigants and / or the justice delivery system as a whole.”
“Going on strike or boycotting the courts cannot be justified on the pretext of the right to freedom of expression and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution,” said the bank of the SC.
Advocates in the districts of Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar have been boycotting judicial work on Saturdays for the past 35 years. The Legal Commission found that between 2012 and 2016, the defenders went on strike for 455 days (average 91 days per year) in the Dehradun district and 515 days (average 103 days per year) in the Haridwar district.
The HC was entertained with a PIL against strikes, which approved a series of instructions along the lines of the law established by the higher court that prohibits strikes by lawyers. He also warned about the contempt of judicial proceedings against wandering lawyers.
The bank also learned suo motu from lawyers who resorted to strikes in various parts of the country despite a series of judgments by the SC prohibiting strikes by defenders. “We bring your motorcycle knowledge and issue notices to the Indian Bar Council and to all state attorney councils to suggest an additional course of action and give concrete suggestions to address the problem of strikes / refrain from working for lawyers,” the bank said. and sought answers from BCI and state councils within six weeks.
The court criticized the inaction of BCI and the state councils against lawyers who incurred strikes. “The day has come for the Indian Bar Council and the state councils to intervene and take concrete steps. It is the duty of the councils of lawyers to ensure that there is no unprofessional or improper conduct by any lawyer, ”he said.
In writing the ruling that supports the steps taken by the HC against the attorneys of three districts of Uttarakhand, Judge Shah said: “We order all interested and district bar associations that comply with the instructions issued by the higher court In his true spirit. It is indicated that if it is determined that there is a violation of any of the instructions issued by the superior court in the contested judgment and order, a serious opinion will be taken and the consequences will be followed, including the punishment under the Law of contempt of the courts ”