Allahabad High Court: : In a writ petition filed for expediting the proceedings in a village land case pending under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Revenue Court, the Single Judge Bench of Alok Mathur, J., expressed astonishment over the fact that the matter was adjourned 68 times due to calls for boycott or condolence by the Rudauli Bar Association. Noting this, the Court directed the President and General Secretary of the Rudauli Bar Association to appear in person to explain the regular call for boycott and why appropriate action must not be taken against them for creating such a sorry state of affairs.
Background
From 12-03-2024 to 18-07-2025, the case was listed 102 times, out of which, on 68 dates, the matter was adjourned due to calls for boycott or condolence by the Rudauli Bar Association.
Analysis
Upon perusing the order sheet, the Court stated that, surprisingly, the matter had been adjourned continuously for the last 21 dates due to calls for boycotts by the Rudauli Bar Association. Thus, prima facie, the proceedings could not take place due to the strikes, and the case could not proceed. The Court remarked that the proceedings before the Revenue Court were pending endlessly due to such strikes, leaving the poor litigants with no redress other than filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious disposal.
“It is surprising that out of the 102 dates fixed in the case, on 68 dates the case was adjourned due to calls for boycott or condolence by the local bar association.”
The Court further reiterated that the Supreme Court had passed several orders requesting the bar associations not to go on strikes recklessly. Frequently calling strikes by the bar association was in gross violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt.) v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45, and Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702.
Furthermore, the Court placed reliance on District Bar Assn., Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya (2020) 17 SCC 672, wherein it was held that lawyers had no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even a token strike. Lawyers holding vakalatnamas on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend courts in pursuance of a call for a strike or boycott. No Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott, and requisitions, if any, for such a meeting must be ignored.
Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to implead the President and General Secretary of the Rudauli Bar Association as respondents in the present petition within one week. Furthermore, since professional misconduct of the aforesaid lawyers/office bearers may also amount to contempt of Court. The Court directed them to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against them for frequently calling for strikes of the bar association, due to which the judicial work of the revenue courts was affected, which amounted to wilful disobedience of the judgment passed in the aforementioned cases.
Consequently, the matter was listed for 02-09-2025, and the President and General Secretary were directed to appear in person along with affidavits explaining the regular call for boycott and why appropriate action must not be taken against them for creating such a sorry state of affairs.
[Mohd. Najim Khan v. Tahsildar/Assistant Collector First Class, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5081, decided on 14-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ved Prakash Sharma and Navneet Kumar Srivastava
For the respondent: C.S.C.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
