A Critical study on

ADVOCATES BOYCOTT IN INDIA

Author
M. Shivya Lakshmi,
Reg. No. : 131502061
IV yr., B. B. A., LL.B., (Hons.)
Saveetha School of Law,
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS),
Saveetha University,
Chennai- 600 077.
Email : ​[email protected]
Phone Number:​ ​+91 9471 06651

Co Author
Mrs. UDAYAVANI
Assistant Professor
Saveetha School of Law,
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS),
Saveetha University,
Chennai- 600 077.
Email : [email protected]
Contact:- 9176744792
ABSTRACT
Author - M.Shivya Lakshmi1
Co-Author - Mrs. Udayavani2

Judiciary is the third estate in a democracy where advocates are the officers of the courts who
have certain responsibilities that need to perform effectively while serving justice to the people
but in recent years there have been various instances when lawyers had called for strikes and
protest which became the reason of conflict between bar and bench. According to the
constitutional perspective right to strike is a fundamental corollary conferred by part III of the
constitution under the right to freedom of association art 19(c) where a group of people
upholding a common interest can come together and demand their rights. However freedom of
association under art 19 is not an absolute right, certain reasonable restrictions are imposed on it.
Therefore one of the important questions arises in the legal profession is that do lawyers have the
right to call for a strike. The Supreme Court and High courts in its various verdicts had made it
clear that Lawyer’s strike is illegal and necessary steps should be taken to curb the growing
tendency. The fundamental duty of the Judiciary is to serve people who are seeking justice for
themselves and in order to do so its very important that every branch of it must coordinate and
cooperate with each other. Any deficiency in the system would lead to the violation of the
fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed by article 21 of the constitution. Therefore the call
for a strike by lawyers has an adverse effect on the functioning of the judiciary. From time to
time the supreme court in its various judgments had resorted the right to strike by lawyers and
directed the litigants to work efficiently for justice without any failures. The paper explores the
Advocates boycott in India.

KEY WORDS : ​Advocate, boycott, Court, Judiciary, Profession.

1
Student, IV yr, B.B.A., LL.B.,(Hons.), Saveetha School of Law, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences(SIMATS),
Saveetha University, Chennai-77. E​mail ID : [email protected].
2
​Asst. Professor of Law, Saveetha School of Law, Saveetha Institute of Medical And Technical Sciences, (SIMATS) Saveetha
University, Chennai 77. Mail id : ​[email protected]
Ph:- 7448500126
INTRODUCTION

The word "strike" has been defined under Section ​2(q) ​of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Strike is the act of stopping work by a body of workmen for the purpose of coercing their
employer to accede to some demands they have made upon him. A perusal of various provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would reveal that workers have no absolute right to go on
strike. Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down the circumstances in which
strike in public utility services is prohibited. Under Section 23 there are restrictions imposed on
workmen from going on strike in the circumstances enumerated therein. It is regarded as a
powerful weapon for collective bargaining. If we look into the provisions of the Advocates Act
and the Legal Practitioners Act, it becomes evident that the position of advocates is quite
different from an employee3. An advocate is a person learned in the law and duly admitted to
practice, who assists his client with advice and pleads for him in open court. It is the professional
body of lawyers - the Bar Council of India which lays down standards of professional conduct
and etiquette for advocates to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates. A Code
of Ethics for the legal profession in India was framed as early as 1962. It details the duties of
advocates. Bar Council of India has also framed rules in exercise of its rule-making power under
the Advocates Act, 1961. the profession of law is not a mere trade or business. It is a vocation to
be pursued to meet the challenge of times. There is much more in the profession than a
traditional dignified calling4. In fact the term "lawyers" refers to a group of men pursuing a
learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service. Pursuit of learned art in the spirit
of a public service is the primary purpose.5

The ban imposed on strikes by lawyers is justified as consequences of strikes were corroding the
roots of the judiciary. However, it is also important to safeguard the interest of the advocates, so
that the functioning of the legal system should be balanced. In 266th report of law commission of

3
​(Lal and Subramanyam)
4
​(Sanjiva Row and Subba Rao)
5
​(Dutt-Majumdar)
India a suggestion has been made that at every district headquarters, the District Judge may
constitute an Advocates’ Grievance Redressal Committee headed by a Judicial Officer which
will deal with the day to day routine matters, a large number of issues and grievances arise in the
smooth working of the advocates. In this regard, the High Court may issue a circular in an
exercise of its power under Article 235 of the Constitution providing for redressal of grievances
of the Advocates which will help in improving their efficiency. It is true that under the
Constitution of India, freedom of association is guaranteed as a fundamental right, but this right
is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order or morality6. The prohibition
against strikes by lawyers is inbuilt in the Advocates Act, 1961. The duties to the court and
duties to the clients prescribed by the Bar Council of India go to prove that strike or boycotting
of courts is antithesis to practise in the court, and is a professional misconduct7. An advocate
being an officer of the court and thus bound to submit to its authority cannot join in an action to
boycott the court or a particular judge because of any grievance. It is worth mentioning that
lawyers Strikes are causing great concern to all concerned including the Judiciary, lawyers, and
litigants, besides the executive strike by lawyers on all India basis continued about 56 days due
to murderous assault by the police on lawyers in front of Parliament police station.8 They were
proceeding to Parliament house to protest against some provisions incorporated in C.P.C and
other enactments which were treated by the lawyer’s community as not in the interest of
administration of justice of even the Supreme Court did not function for a day for the first time in
the history of the working of the Supreme Court. Judges were also painted by the misconduct of
the police has the incident of brutal use of criminal force was Shown to them through video reels
9
. The administration did not move even against the erring police officials till the Delhi High
Court passed some strictures against the executive for not removing the police officer from their
posts, though the executive authorities pretended to hold inquiry through a Commission to be
headed by a Supreme Court.

6
​(Valmaer)
7
​(Mount)
8
​(Wood)
9
​(Ramachandran)
Aim: ​To know whether it is rightful for a lawyer to Boycott or not in India since lawyering is
also a profession as well as trade as the freedom under Art. 19 (1)(g) has provided.

Objective: ​To study about the boycott by lawyers; To know about the legality of the advocate’s
boycott; To know about the stand of the Supreme court on the Advocates boycott; To study
about the contempt of court as well as boycott.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The profession of lawyers ordains a high level of ethics as much as in the means as in the
ends.​(Bhalla) Justice cannot be attained without the stream being pellucid throughout its course
and this is of great public concern, not merely profession care, the standards of professional
conduc​(Kipnis)​t, that is the legal ethics not only serve the interest of the society but they also
help the legal profession to maintain the honour and dignity of the profession​(Lennertz) as well
as the system of administration of justice prevailing in the society.​(Low et al.) Further, to secure
a spirit of friendly cooperation between the bench and the Bar in promotion of highest standards
of justice.​(Nanda) It also establish honourable and fair dealings of the counsel with the client,
opponent and witnesses. Above all the lawyers discharge their responsibilities to the community
at large.​(Boon and Flood) Supreme Court also observed that absenting from courts on a
particular day in pursuance of a concerted movement on the part of the lawyers to boycott a court
amounts to professional misconduct​(Amerasinghe)​. The Supreme Court has also observed that it
is the duty of every advocate​(In)​, who accepts the brief in a criminal case, to attend the trial from
day to day. Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty if
he so fails to attend​(Pillay)​. The primary function of the Court is to administer justice to and
between the parties approaching Courts​(​Professional Ethics and Official Etiquette for Lawyers​)​.
The Courts would be failing in their duties in not performing such a function merely on the
ground that lawyers choose to abstain from appearing in Courts​(Paterson)​. The Judges are
supposed to train themselves to decide cases by studying the pleas and the law on the subject
even if unaided either by the parties or their counsel. There is no legal impediment in the way of
the Court not to administer justice when lawyers abstain from appearing in Courts or they appear
but refuse to assist the Court in the administration of justice.​(Baron and Corbin) Code of Civil
Procedure contains provisions for proceeding with cases where parties fail to appear.​(Luban)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This paper is an empirical and analytical study. The author has done a survey to collect data on
the topic. A questionnaire was prepared with due care and diligence to gain useful information
relating to the topic of the study from the respective samples. The questionnaire was distributed
among the samples to collect the appropriate data. The samples were from the Urban Chennai.
The size of the sample is 1500 people. The SPSS tool used is the Pearson Chi square test.
Secondary data was also used in the study like journals, news papers, online articles etc.,

ANALYSIS

HYPOTHESIS
Ho : The Boycott by the advocate is not valid and is a professional misconduct.
Ha : The boycott by advocate is valid, which is their right.
Table 1
6. Education

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

ill-Literate 362 24.1 24.1 24.1

Valid Literate 1138 75.9 75.9 100.0

Total 1500 100.0 100.0

The above table is the frequency table for the independent variable Education. There are two
categories namely illiterate and literate. The valid percent in the illiterate category is 24.1 percent
and valid percent in the literate category is 75.9 percent.

Table 2
The word Boycott is associated with the Profession

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

 Percent

Strongly Agree 600 40.0 40.0 40.0

Strongly Dis-Agree 131 8.7 8.7 48.7
Dis-Agree 210 14.0 14.0 62.7
Valid
Agree 440 29.3 29.3 92.1
Neutral 119 7.9 7.9 100.0

Total 1500 100.0 100.0

The above is the frequency table for the dependent variable boycott associated with the law
profession. There are 5 categories of responses. The valid percent of people who strongly agree
are 40.0 percent. The valid percent of people who strongly disagree are 8.7 percent. The valid
percent of people who disagree are 14 percent. People who Agree are 29.3 percent. The people
who gave neutral responses are 7.9 percent.

Table 3
Boycott is needed to Advocates in India

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Strongly Agree 636 42.4 42.4 42.4

Strongly Dis-Agree 54 3.6 3.6 46.0
Dis-Agree 249 16.6 16.6 62.6
Valid
Agree 280 18.7 18.7 81.3
Neutral 281 18.7 18.7 100.0

Total 1500 100.0 100.0

The above is the frequency table for the dependent variable boycott is needed to advocates.
There are 5 categories of responses. The valid percent of people who strongly agree are 42.4
percent. The valid percent of people who strongly disagree are 46 percent. The valid percent of
people who disagree are 16.6 percent. People who agree are 18.7 percent. The people who gave
neutral responses are 18.7 percent.
Table 4
Crosstab
Count

46. The word Boycott is associated with the Profession Total

Strongly Agree Strongly Dis-Agree Dis-Agree Agree Neutral

ill-Literate 162 57 98 24 21 362

6. Education
Literate 438 74 112 416 98 1138
Total 600 131 210 440 119 1500

The above is the cross tabulation for the independent variable Education and dependent variable
is Boycott associated with the profession. In the category of illiteracy, 162 strongly agree, 57
people strongly disagree, 21 are neutral, 98 disagree, 24 strongly disagree and the total responses
are 362. In the category of Literate, 438 strongly agree, 74 strongly disagree, 112 people
disagree, 416 agree and 98 neutral and the total responses received from the people who are
1138, and responses from both the categories are 1500 responses.

Table 5
Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 174.378​a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 191.152 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 42.760 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 1500

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
28.72.

The above table is the chi square table. With the chi square result as 0.0, hence it is proved to be
no significant relationship between the dependent and the independent variable. Alternatel
hypothesis has been accepted.
​Table 6

Crosstab
Count

51. Boycott is needed to Advocates in India Total

Strongly Agree Strongly Dis-Agree Dis-Agree Agree Neutral

ill-Literate 161 7 82 16 96 362

6. Education
Literate 475 47 167 264 185 1138
Total 636 54 249 280 281 1500

The above is the cross tabulation for the independent variable Education and dependent variable
is Boycott is needed to advocates in India. In the category of illiteracy, 161 strongly agree, 7
people strongly disagree, 96 are neutral, 82 disagree, 16 agree and the total responses are 362. In
the category of Literate, 475 strongly agree, 47 strongly disagree, 167 people disagree, 264 agree
and 185 neutral and the total responses received from the people who are 1138, and responses
from both the categories are 1500 responses.

Table 7
Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 82.016​a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 97.424 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .025 1 .874

N of Valid Cases 1500

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 13.03.

The above table is the chi square table. With the chi square result as 0.0, hence it is proved to be
no significant relationship between the dependent and the independent variable. Alternate
hypothesis has been accepted.

DISCUSSION

As already seen, the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings is vested with the Bar Councils.
But it is unlikely that the Bar Councils will initiate proceedings when there is a tug of war
between the Bench and the Bar, i.e., where a strike is conducted by the Bar interrupting the court
functioning. Now, the question is whether the Court can suo moto initiate disciplinary action
against such lawyers who participate in strike and debar them from practicing. Here the lawyer
misbehaves before the court violating both ethics and law. The issue was finally settled in
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, where the court held that the power to debar a
person from practising law vest with the Bar Council rather than with the Supreme Court. Even
though the decision that the power to discipline the members is given to the professional body
(i.e. Bar Council) is welcome, the reasoning does not hold good as it fails to answer questions as
to the meaning of contempt of court, professional ethics and the final authority to take the
decision whether a person is fit to practice law or not. When an advocate, who is an officer of the
court, commits contempt, he is not only a contemnor but also a person having no proper conduct
required of a lawyer. Thus contempt by advocate is different from contempt by an ordinary
person. It could be treated as a separate and distinct violation of both ethics and law. Amongst
the various duties required to be discharged by lawyers to the court, the important one is that an
advocate shall maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity
of the judicial office is essential for the survival of an independent judiciary. Lawyer's
profession cannot be equated with mere trade or business. Protest is essential to a democracy.
Like other forms of protest, the right to strike places pressure on those in power to recognise
dissent and respond to just demands. It is difficult to concede a right to boycott courts to the
lawyers on the analogy of conceding right to strike of employees. More over the right to strike
work in India is admittedly not absolute. But, even if there is no fundamental right to strike, a
strike is not per se illegal. In Emperor v. Rajani Kanta Bose, the Calcutta High Court opined that
a pleader being an officer of the court is bound to submit to its authority. Thus he cannot join any
action to boycott the court or a particular judge because of any grievance real or alleged, whether
touching the court or of political or other character. Taking the same view, the Supreme Court in
Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. Delhi Administration,' observed that absenting from courts on a
particular day in pursuance of a concerted movement on the part of the lawyers to boycott a court
amounts to professional misconduct.

SUGGESTION

There are many flaws in the Advocates Act as well as the Rules. The most important and
surprising is that the term "guilty of professional or other misconduct" are nowhere defined nor
any provision for framing of charge is made. Unless such definition of guilt is made, no suitable
legal action could be taken under the Act. The definition of misconduct should be exhaustive and
lawyers be punished only for the commission of such misconduct.

India lacks a code of conduct, which specifically deals with the professional conduct of lawyers.
Codification of rules of legal ethics will furnish an authoritative statement of ideals by which
every lawyer, when in doubt, may be guided. It will tend to raise and strengthen the standard of
professional honour. Such a Code based on ancient tradition will serve as guidance for lawyers
and will help in checking the growing tendency in the direction of commercialising the vocation
of the Bar. It will be helpful to the Bar Councils and the Supreme Court in judging and censuring
acts of the lawyer. So a Code of Legal Ethics containing rules in a simple and readily accessible
form should exist to influence the conduct of the advocate from the very early days of
commencement of his career.

CONCLUSION

If the advocate abstains from attending the court then he will be committing a breach of his
professional duty. When lawyers go on strike, it is only the litigating party who suffers. During
the strike, in the guise of taking urgent matters of injunction, bail etc., lawyers can remain
monetarily very comfortable. They earn a well-paid rest. Similarly, the judges and Government
are also not at a loss. Judges would get their pay without any deduction. So everybody is happy
at the cost of the poor litigating man who has no alternative except to wait and wait for his case
to be finally disposed off. Thus the court has recognised 'the right to protest' of lawyers but at the
same time said that they do not have a right to strike or boycott. The right to protest of the
lawyers should not be curtailed. Further, as our Constitutional system becomes more
majoritarian, role of protest has increased. Wearing armbands are not effective methods of
protest. Hence protest must be resorted to on a non-coercive basis as a last resort for a limited
duration bearing in mind the workload of the courts and the effect of protest on the
administration of justice. Indeed, it is the Bar that should come to the rescue of the Bench when
the judicial power is under threat and judges pressurised. Browbeating lawyers may undermine
judicial independence.

REFERENCE

1. Amerasinghe, A. Ranjit B. ​Professional Ethics and Responsibilities of Lawyers​. 1993.

2. Baron, Paula, and Lillian Corbin. “The Unprofessional Professional: Do Lawyers Need

Rules?” ​Legal Ethics​, vol. 20, no. 2, 2017, pp. 155–73,

doi:​10.1080/1460728x.2017.1397402​.

3. Bhalla, Sandeep. ​Advocates Act, 1961 & Professional Ethics in India: (A Commentary)​.

Sandeep Bhalla, 2012.

4. Boon, Andrew, and John Flood. “Globalization of Professional Ethics? The Significance

of Lawyers’ International Codes of Conduct.” ​Legal Ethics​, vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, pp.

29–57, doi:​10.1080/1460728x.1999.11424092​.

5. Dutt-Majumdar, Nirmalendu. ​Advocates Act & Professional Ethics: Law Relating to the

Legal Profession in India.​ 1975.

6. In, Discountbookstore. ​50 Leading Cases of Supreme Court of India: Full Text Judgment

with Equivalent Citaion by Discountbookstore.in.​ Discountbookstore.in, 2014.

7. Kipnis, Kenneth. “Ethics and the Professional Responsibility of Lawyers.” ​Journal of

Business Ethics,​ vol. 10, no. 8, 1991, pp. 569–76, doi:​10.1007/bf00382874​.

8. Lal, C. S., and C. S. Subramanyam. ​Subramanyam’s Commentaries on Advocates Act,

1961: With Bar Council of India Rules (central & States); Professional Ethics and Allied

Laws.​ 2006.

9. Lennertz, James E. “Ethics and the Professional Responsibility of Lawyers

(commentary).” ​Journal of Business Ethics,​ vol. 10, no. 8, 1991, pp. 577–79,

doi:​10.1007/bf00382875​.

10. Low, Lucinda A., et al. ​International Lawyer’s Deskbook.​ American Bar Association,

2002.

11. Luban, David. “Professional Ethics: A New Code for Lawyers?” ​The Hastings Center

Report,​ vol. 10, no. 3, 1980, p. 11, doi:​10.2307/3560921​.

12. Mount, Eric. “Book Review: Doctors, Lawyers, Ministers: Christian Ethics in

Professional Practice.” ​Union Seminary Review,​ vol. 39, no. 3, 1985, pp. 331–32,

doi:​10.1177/002096438503900324​.

13. Nanda, B. R. “Advocate for India.” ​Gokhale,​ 1999, pp. 212–20,

doi:​10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195647518.003.0020​.

14. Paterson, Alan. “Lawyers’ Ethics and Professional Responsibility.” ​Legal Ethics,​ vol. 19,

no. 1, 2016, pp. 177–81, doi:​10.1080/1460728x.2016.1165972​.

15. Pillay, Nirmala. “Legal Ethics: Lawyers and the Public Interest.” ​Professional Ethics:
 Education for a Humane Society,​ pp. 59–72, doi:​10.5848/csp.3680.00004​.

16. Professional Ethics and Official Etiquette for Lawyers.​ 2019,

doi:​10.31085/9785392288434-2019-328​.

17. Ramachandran, Raju. ​Professional Ethics for Lawyers: Changing Profession, Changing

Ethics.​ 2014.

18. Sanjiva Row, T. V., and D. V. Subba Rao. ​Sanjiva Row’s The Advocates Act, 1961.​ 2005.

19. Valmaer. ​Lawyer’s Code of Ethics: A Satire.​ The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 1887.

20. Wood, Arthur Lewis. “Professional Ethics among Criminal Lawyers.” ​Social Problems,​

vol. 7, no. 1, 1959, pp. 70–83, doi:​10.1525/sp.1959.7.1.03a00090​.

PLAGIARISM REPORT