Lawyers should not go on strike: SC

The Supreme Court today said lawyers should not go on strike or give calls to boycott courts, while allowing a months time to the Bar bodies to convene a meeting to solve the problem "once and for all".
"My view is that the lawyers should not go on strike," a bench of justices Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra said, adding that it's like "Brahmastra" (weapon created by Brahma) one should use it in a difficult situation, but now a days this is being used frequently.
The court also observed that there is a constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court prohibiting strike by lawyers.

"This is a very serious problem, it needs to worked out," the bench said.
The court's oral observation was made during hearing of a PIL by NGO Common Cause through advocate Prashant Bhushan, which has approached the apex court against the recent strike of lawyers in the Delhi High Court and District Courts on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the Bar, said "not to work is also a constitutional right...".

He, however, said that we can sit down in the family of lawyers and decide the issue.
Responding to this, the bench said that in a months time meeting of the important sections of the Bar Associations be called to see if problem can be sorted out once and for all.

Bhushan has sought contempt of court against the Bar.
"Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the court. They owe a duty to their clients. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy," the NGO had said.
During the hearing, Bhushan said the apex court in a 2002 judgement had held that "lawyers have no right to go on strike, nor can they give any call for boycott".
"This court has further stated that lawyers refusing to respond to such a call cannot be visited with any adverse consequences by the Bar Association or the Bar Council," he said.

In its plea, the NGO said a Bill to enhance pecuniary jurisdiction was introduced in Parliament which proposed that civil suits upto Rs 2 crore would be heard by the District Courts instead of the Delhi High Court.
"Lawyer's body of Delhi High Court called for abstinence of work and sought that the Commercial Courts Bill 2015, which calls for the creation of dedicated courts for commercial cases at the trial court and High Court levels, and fixes the pecuniary jurisdiction of all High Courts in commercial cases, should be tabled along with the Delhi High Court Amendment Bill," it said.