In June this year, those seeking justice at the Calcutta High Court were confronted with a bizarre situation. The lawyers, who held their briefs, had gone on a strike. The reason: the sweltering heat was having a debilitating effect on their arguing capacity.
The judges were all ready to discharge their duty, but those seeking justice had to wait months before they got their day in court. Wouldn’t this obstruction of justice delivery, for the most appallingly banal of reasons, make anyone’s blood boil?
On the other hand, in October this year, the Bombay High Court introduced a strict procedure for vetting people before they would be allowed to argue their own cases. This has caused a flutter of indignation among a section of lawyers who believe that such checks place impossible hurdles in the path of access to justice, and are mulling a strike in protest.
The issue of lawyers’ strikes in India is poised at a confusing crossroad — on one side, the common man and judiciary are aghast at how many rogue lawyers hold the justice system to ransom.
The other side cites the example of criminal lawyers in Britain who went on a long strike to voice their protest against the government’s sharp cuts in legal aid, and contends that lawyers’ strikes serve a vital purpose and should not be completely outlawed.
Now, the Supreme Court, acting on a petition by activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, is set to decide, once and for all, if lawyers should ever be allowed to boycott the courts, irrespective of their causes or grievances.