What’s law for citizens isn’t law for lawyers?

The Bar Council of India and state bar councils are responsible for disciplining advocates practising in the country’s various courts. Ironically, these very bodies have given a call for a two-day all-India strike by lawyers on July 11-12.

The reason for such a massive and unprecedented protest is the introduction of the education bill in Parliament, which is likely to encroach upon the powers of the Bar Council of India in matters of legal education. The Bar Council of India’s concern may be genuine. But the question is whether it is legal and proper of lawyers to go on strike?

Medicine and law are called noble professions in view of the kind of service they provide and higher values they are suppose to cherish. Doctors save life and lawyers provide protection to means of sustenance of life. Strike has been recognised as tool of collective bargaining by the labour class.

The intelligentsia is capable of formulating a view point for getting favourable results. Because views are weighed not counted. However, these days, doctors’ strike has become a matter of routine. Is it appropriate for doctor to allow patients to suffer and die because they are on strike irrespective of the fact that their demands may be genuine? This is in violation of the Hippocratic Oath, which every doctor takes. Similarly, how can a strike by lawyers be justified on any ground? In view of exigencies of the profession, vacation courts are available during vacations. Not only this, even after court hours, lawyers are entitled to approach judges at their residences in case of urgency. Would it not be improper for lawyers to go on strike keeping in view the role they play and the status they enjoy in the society? Can even one unlawfully detained citizen be allowed to suffer because lawyers are on strike? These are the ethical aspect of the profession. Our Supreme Court is of the view that lawyers cannot resort to strike. It has been held by the apex court that any strike by lawyers is illegal. In Ex Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India & Anr (2003) a six-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or to give a call for boycott. It further says that nor can a lawyer while holding on behalf of clients abstain from court in pursuance of strike or boycott. The Supreme Court has further said that lawyers refusing to respond to such a call cannot be visited with any adverse consequences by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. In another judgment (Common Cause vs Union of India, 2006) a three-judge bench including present Chief Justice SH Kapadia held that Bar Councils are expected to rise to the occasion as they are responsible to uphold the dignity of courts and majesty of law and to prevent interference in administration of justice. It is the duty of Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct. This being their duty, no Bar Council can even consider giving a call for strike or a call for boycott.

In this background, the role of the Bar Council of India and state bar councils should be to uphold the law of the land whether they agree with it or not. They may challenge those provisions in court or take other constitutional or other legal means for protest instead of resorting to strike. Such a step by the Bar Council of India is setting a wrong precedence. When citizens are expected to be law abiding how an exception can be made for lawyers.

The author is an advocate practising at the Bombay high court