Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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