9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the right of legal professionals to strike. 2. Implementation of interim measures to regulate strikes by legal professionals. 3. Monitoring the effectiveness of the interim order. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of the right of legal professionals to strike The Supreme Court directed public notice to be issued to Bar Associations and State Bar Councils regarding the issue of strikes by legal professionals. After discussions and meetings, a consensus emerged that instead of debating the broader question of legal professionals' right to strike, an interim arrangement should be worked out. The Bar Council of India expressed its stance against strikes except in rare cases involving the dignity and independence of the judiciary and the legal profession. The Court suggested focusing on the working of the interim arrangement rather than delving into the legality of strikes at that stage. Issue 2: Implementation of interim measures to regulate strikes by legal professionals The Court proposed interim measures to regulate strikes by legal professionals, emphasizing that strikes should be rare and peaceful to avoid causing hardship to litigants. The suggested measures included allowing individual members to appear in court despite strike calls, ensuring no adverse consequences for members who choose to practice, permitting peaceful demonstrations in court, and holding office bearers accountable for implementing strike decisions. The Bar Council of India agreed to incorporate these measures into their Conduct & Disciplinary Rules for statutory support. The Court decided to make these measures the order of the Court and observe their implementation for at least six months. Issue 3: Monitoring the effectiveness of the interim order The Court adjourned the matter for six months to oversee the working of the interim order. It expressed hope that the measures would function effectively and urged Bar Councils and Bar Associations to drop actions against members who appeared in court during strikes. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding professional traditions, unity, and integrity while also cautioning legal professionals about the possibility of judges refusing adjournments due to strike calls. The Court expressed gratitude to the parties involved for their positive contributions and adjourned the matter with optimism, hoping there would be no contravention of the interim measures. This judgment reflects the Supreme Court's efforts to address the issue of strikes by legal professionals through practical interim measures aimed at balancing the interests of legal professionals, the judiciary, and litigants.
|
