MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Warns Faizabad Bar: No More Work Strikes, Grievances Must Follow Legal Channels

04 September 2024 10:57 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent hearing, directed the Faizabad Bar Association to refrain from passing resolutions for abstaining from work. The Court stressed that any grievances the members have should be addressed through proper legal channels, such as approaching the District Judge or the Administrative Judge of the High Court. The judgment underscores the judiciary's stance against work abstentions that disrupt court functioning and affect the administration of justice.

The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Faizabad Bar Association challenging actions taken by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The Association had earlier passed resolutions for abstaining from work, which led to a confrontation with the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court highlighted the problematic conduct of the Bar Association members, leading to the current proceedings before the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, was apprised of the High Court's observations regarding the Faizabad Bar Association's actions. The High Court, in its judgment, criticized the Bar Association for passing resolutions that hindered the functioning of the court. The Supreme Court took serious note of this, acknowledging the disruptive impact such actions have on the judicial process.

The Court made it clear that such resolutions, which advocate for abstention from work, are not acceptable. The bench emphasized that grievances of Bar members should be redressed through formal mechanisms within the judicial system, rather than resorting to actions that impede the court’s functioning.

The Supreme Court's directive is grounded in the principle that the administration of justice must not be obstructed by any form of collective action that halts court proceedings. The Court's order reflects a commitment to ensuring that any issues within the Bar are addressed through lawful and procedural means, maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

The bench ordered that every office bearer of the Faizabad Bar Association must file an affidavit by the next hearing date, affirming that they will not pass any further resolutions to abstain from work. The affidavits are to be submitted before the District Judge, the High Court, and the Supreme Court.

Justice Surya Kant observed, "The practice of passing resolutions to abstain from work is not in the interest of justice and cannot be condoned. The Bar must seek redressal of grievances through appropriate legal forums."

The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a stern reminder to Bar Associations across the country that the administration of justice cannot be disrupted by actions such as work abstentions. By requiring undertakings from the Faizabad Bar Association's office bearers, the Court has reinforced the importance of adhering to lawful procedures for grievance redressal. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for the conduct of Bar Associations nationwide, ensuring that the judicial process remains uninterrupted.

Date of Decision: September 2, 2024.

Faizabad Bar Association vs. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Latest Legal News