Case Name: Ex. Capt.Harish Uppal V. Union Of India and Others (AIR 2003 SC 739)
PETITIONER : Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal
RESPONDENT: Union of India and another
Citation: REFERENCE: W.P. (civil) 132 of 1988
BENCH : Justice S.N. Variava, Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17th December 2002
AN OVERVIEW
The petitioner, in the present case, was an ex-army officer.
In 1972, the petitioner was posted in Bangladesh, where some accusation which was related to embezzlement was put on him and he was brought to the military court in India.
Charges against him were outlined and he was court-martialed from his post and titles alongside imprisonment for 2 years.
He filed a pre-affirmation application in a civil Court to audit the matter and he got a reply from the court after an extensive stretch of 11 years when the limitation period of the survey has been expired.
It was subsequently discovered that documents along with the application got misplaced during a vicious strike by advocates.
A special petition was filed by the petitioner to announce strikes by advocates illicit.
LAWS INVOLVED :
The Constitution of India:
1. Article 226: Powers given to the court to issue
writs.
2. Article 145: defines the rules of court.
The Advocates Act:
1. Section 7: Functions of the Bar Council of
India.
2. Section 30: defines the right of advocates to
practice.
3. Section 34: Powers given to the High Court to
make rules.
4. Section 38: Appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
Whether lawyer can go on strike?
Whether lawyer has a right to strike? and Give a
call for Boycott Court.
FACTS:
The Petitioner presented that strike as a method for collective bargaining was perceived only in industrial disputes and lawyers who were officials of the Court could not utilize strikes as a way to extort the Courts or the clients.
They further contended that the call for strike by lawyers was in actuality a call to break the agreements which lawyers have with their clients. Then again, the legal fraternity presented that lawyers retained the right to strike in uncommon cases to get their interests imparted in the case of improper treatment being given to them.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court on acknowledging the fact that those lawyers willing to go to the Court couldn't go to inferable from the strike or the boycott asked the lawyers to intensely decline to submit to any call for strike or boycott court.
The Supreme Court stated that lawyers reserve no right to go on strike or give a call for the boycott of court, not even on a symbolic strike.
The protest, if any is required, must be made by giving press explanations, TV interviews completing of the Court premises standards and additionally notices, wearing dark or white or any shading arm groups, tranquil dissent walks outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay facts and so on.
The Court also saw that an Advocate is an official of the Court and appreciates uncommon status in the public arena. They have commitments and obligations to guarantee smooth working of the Court and they additionally owe an obligation to their customer.
Strikes disturb Court procedures and put the interest of their customers at risk. Thus, the Court has imposed a ban on strikes by lawyers.
The Supreme Court of India concluded that the lawyers reserve no right to strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a symbolic strike. They can protest, if required, must be only by giving press articulations, TV interviews, completing of Court premises standards and additionally notices, wearing black or white or any shading armbands, peaceful protest outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas and so forth.
Reference
No comments:
Post a Comment