Court Orders Grievance Redressal Mechanisms to Address Lawyers' Concerns, Reaffirms Supreme Court's Stance on Strikes
In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Rajeev Bharti, declared the recent advocates' strike in Lucknow as illegal and amounting to contempt of court. The judgment, delivered on June 8, 2026, emphasizes that such strikes interfere with the administration of justice and infringe upon the rights of litigants, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The case arose from a public interest litigation filed by Anuradha Singh against the State of Uttar Pradesh, following a boycott of court proceedings by members of the Central Bar Association and Lucknow Bar Association from May 18 to May 26, 2026. This action, the court noted, caused significant prejudice to litigants, particularly impacting those who traveled long distances for court hearings.
The High Court, referencing several Supreme Court judgments, including Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Common Cause v. Union of India, reiterated that strikes by lawyers are not only illegal but also constitute professional misconduct. The court underscored that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not justify actions that impede the rights of others to speedy justice.
To address grievances effectively, the court directed the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees at both the High Court and district court levels. These committees are to include representatives from the judiciary, bar councils, and district administration, ensuring a structured approach to resolving lawyers' concerns without resorting to strikes.
The judgment also mandates that any future instances of strike calls by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh be reported to the Registrar General of the High Court. Such actions will be treated as ex facie criminal contempt, warranting disciplinary proceedings against the responsible advocates and bar associations.
In response to the strikes, the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, has already taken disciplinary action against some of its members, expelling two advocates for their roles in distributing plastic lathis and inciting actions against the administration.
This ruling marks a significant step in reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that the administration of justice is not hindered by unlawful strikes. The court has scheduled further proceedings for July 27, 2026, to consider explanations from the involved parties and determine any additional actions.
Bottom line:-
Advocates' strike or boycott of courts is illegal, unjustified, and amounts to contempt of court. Such actions interfere with the administration of justice and the rights of litigants, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Anuradha Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2922704
