All the advocates in some districts of Uttarakhand have been boycotting the Courts on all Saturdays from last 35 Years and which was really creating an obstruction for the litigants to access courts and as a result of which there is an increase in the pendency of cases. On 25/09/2019, HC of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in WP (PIL) No.31 of 2016, had passed an order directing The District Bar Association of Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar to withdraw their call for a strike and to start attending court on all the working Sundays. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, District Bar Association has filed this SLP in the Supreme Court.

 Is Strike/ Boycott courts a fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a)?

Ex- Capt. Harrish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45   

Lawyers have no right to go on a strike or call for a strike and it is highly unprofessional to refuse to attend the court even in pursuance of call for a strike.

Supreme Court bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409

It was held that the Strikes are in violation of the law laid down by this court and the professional misconduct amounts to contempt of court.

Krishna Kant Tamrakar v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 17 SCC 27 

It was held that the uncalled for regular strikes obstructs the access to justice and it is a violation of Fundamental Right under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 

 It was held that HC is absolutely justified in issuing such directions and where lawyers right to speech is considered, such a right cannot be exercised at the cost of the Litigants or at the cost of Justice Delivery System of India and hence, the SLP was dismissed. Bar Council of India must ensure that the advocates behave in a professional manner and must give suggestions to deal with the problem of Strikes/ Boycotts. The registry is also directed to issue notices for the same to the Bar Council of India and the State Bar councils accordingly.