Strikes by lawyers cannot deprive litigants of their right to access justice: Allahabad High Court

Courts must remain functional, and judicial officers must discharge their duties even during disruptions - Allahabad High Court, through Justice Ajit Kumar, dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of release granted in favor of the landlord under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The Court directed the petitioner, Ashutosh Kumar Pathak, to pursue the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Act, emphasizing that writ petitions cannot bypass statutory remedies unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

However, the Court took note of the lawyers' strike in the district of Ghaziabad and issued strong observations to ensure access to justice, directing the district administration to provide police protection to litigants and judicial officers if necessary.

 “Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Statutory Appeal Exists”
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition, emphasizing that Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act provides a statutory mechanism for appeal. The Court clarified:

“In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing a rent appeal under Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.”

The petitioner’s argument that the lawyers' strike made it impossible to file an appeal was rejected as insufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

 “Lawyers’ Strikes Cannot Bar Access to Justice”
Taking serious note of the lawyers’ strike in Ghaziabad, the Court held that litigants must not be deprived of justice due to external disruptions. It directed the district administration to take protective measures if necessary:

“Even if there is a strike by lawyers, judicial officers must discharge their judicial functions, and if litigants want to argue their cases, the district administration, in consultation with the District Judge, must provide police protection.”

The Court emphasized that strikes by lawyers should not hinder judicial proceedings or prevent litigants from entering courts.

 “Legal Profession Must Uphold Public Interest and Ethical Responsibilities”
The judgment underscored the ethical responsibility of lawyers as part of a noble profession. It stated: “Lawyers belong to a noble profession, and it is expected that they shall never restrain any litigant from approaching courts for justice.” The Court made it clear that professional strikes must not compromise the fundamental right of access to justice or obstruct judicial proceedings.

The petitioner, Ashutosh Kumar Pathak, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 8, 2024, by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
The order granted release of the premises in favor of the landlord, but instead of pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35 of the Act, the petitioner approached the High Court citing difficulties due to a lawyers’ strike in Ghaziabad.
The petitioner argued that the strike rendered him remediless, making it impossible to file an appeal in the Rent Tribunal.

The Court reiterated that when a statutory remedy exists, it must ordinarily be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226.

“Bypassing a statutory remedy is not appropriate unless extraordinary circumstances justify such intervention.”

The Court criticized the disruption of justice caused by the lawyers’ strike and stressed that judicial officers must ensure that courts remain operational. It held: “No lawyer can restrain a judicial officer from discharging judicial functions nor can lawyers restrain any litigant from entering courts of law.”
The Court affirmed that access to justice is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution, and administrative measures must ensure that litigants are not left without recourse due to external disruptions.
To ensure justice, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Rent Tribunal within two weeks and ordered the Tribunal to decide the accompanying stay application within one week, irrespective of the ongoing strike.

Directions Issued by the Court
Filing of Appeal: The petitioner was directed to file a statutory appeal under Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, within two weeks.
Expeditious Decision on Stay Application: The Rent Tribunal was instructed to decide the petitioner’s stay application within one week of its filing, even if the lawyers' strike continued.
Administrative Support: The district administration, in consultation with the District Judge, was directed to ensure police protection for litigants and judicial officers if required.
Adherence to Professional Ethics: Lawyers were urged to uphold their ethical responsibilities and facilitate justice rather than obstructing it.

Access to Statutory Remedies: The ruling reinforces the principle that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions where statutory remedies exist, unless extraordinary circumstances justify intervention.
Judicial Function Amid Strikes: By issuing specific directions to maintain judicial functionality during lawyers’ strikes, the judgment safeguards litigants’ right to access justice.
 

Date of Judgment: December 6, 2024