VARUN EX CAP Harish Uppal Vs Union of India

CASE NAME Ex-Capt.
Harish Uppal vs Union of India
CITATION 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 195 JT 1994 (3) 126
COURT Supreme Court of India
BENCH CJI, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S. N. VARIAVA, D. M.

DHARMADHIKARI
PETITIONER: Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal
RESPONDENT: Union of India
DECIDED ON 17/12/2002
FACTS
i. The petitioner was an ex-army officer who was posted in Bangladesh in Indo-
Pak
Issues (what is in dispute) War in the year 1972, where he was accused of
some embezzlement and was brought to military court in India.
ii. And after the courts investigation he was court-martialed from his post and
was imprisoned for 2 years.
iii. Aggrieved by the courts order he filed a pre-affirmation application in the
civil court to audit his matter and after a long stretch of 11 years he got reply
from the court when the limitation period of the survey expired.
iv. Later it was found that the documents of the survey along with his
application got misplaced due to intense strike by the Advocates.
v. And due to this particular reason, the petitioner field a writ petition in the
High court and further appealed to Supreme court to declare Strike by the
advocates as illegal.
ISSUES
 Whether advocates in India have the right to strike or boycott the

Court?
Procedural History
One of the most contested issues regarding advocates in India has been
whether they have the right to strike/protest or boycott the Court. In the case
of Arunava Ghosh v Bar Council of West Bengal AIR 1996 Cal 331, the Court
touched upon the issue of whether the Bar Council has a right to call a strike
by advocates. It was observed that the call for a strike of advocates by the Bar
Council will lead to the Contempt of Court and violate the provisions of
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In another famous case of Mahavir
Prasad v Jacks Aviation Ltd 1999 1 SCC 37], the Court remarked that the
advocates have no right to boycott any Court or stop any Court from
executing its powers. Despite there being famous judgments on the right to
strike by advocates, there seemed to be a lot of confusion. The Supreme
Court finally put this issue to rest in 2002, by delivering a landmark judgment
in the case of Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India W.P
Party’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that advocates are officers of the Court and should
not be allowed to use strikes as a means to blackmail or extort the Courts. He
further contended that advocates who commit contempt of Court by
boycotting the Courts and going on strikes should be made to face serious
consequences like getting debarred from practicing in any Court. It was
submitted that those committees who give a call for strikes, should be
punished with contempt proceedings. Lastly, he argued that if an advocate
has accepted a Vakalat on behalf of a client, he must appear in Court. Strikes
done by advocates are usually to break the agreement between their clients
and not appear in Court. So the Bar Council must frame strict rules regarding
this.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the
advocates have the right to go on strikes, and it is up to the Bar Councils to
decide whether a strike by advocates should be done or not.
Judgment
i. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding upon the matter

concluded that strike by an advocate is unlawful and hence, they
have no right to call for the boycott of court, and not even symbolic
strike.
ii. The court also held that a strike is permitted only when the integrity,
respect and working of the Bar Association is at stake and that too
comes under the ambit of rarest of the rare case such as grievances
against the presiding office or Judgment of the court or some
confrontation with the administration or there happens any clash of
interest between groups of lawyers etc.
iii. And that protest should be done by doing press explanation, TV
Interviews, additional issuance of notices, by wearing dark or white
bands, by walking outside the premises or away from the court, etc.,
but that all should also not disturb the working of the court.
iv. The court further held that the lawyers who are willing to work in the
court should not be stopped from working and forced to be part of
boycott on the pretext of some pressure such as putting threat of
expulsion on them.
v. The court along with all above said that an Advocate holds an
uncommon status in the court and act as its officers in front of public.
And hence, they are obliged to their commitments and obligations of
guarantying Justice to the public by making the court to function
smoothly.
vi. And in the view of all the statements stated above court held that
strikes by advocates disrupt the smooth functioning of the court and
also put the interest of public aside, and with this reason court has
imposed ban on strikes.

VARUN EX CAP Harish Uppal Vs Union of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VARUN EX CAP Harish Uppal Vs Union of India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VARUN EX CAP Harish Uppal Vs Union of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NAME Ex-Capt.

Harish Uppal vs Union of India

CITATION 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 195 JT 1994 (3) 126

COURT Supreme Court of India

BENCH CJI, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S. N. VARIAVA, D. M.

PETITIONER: Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal

RESPONDENT: Union of India

 Whether advocates in India have the right to strike or boycott the

i. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding upon the matter

You might also like