Harish Uppal Vs U.O.I.

,2003 AIR SCW 43

Facts of the Case
Mr. Harish Uppal was a retired army officer. He was posted in Bangladesh during the Liberation War in
1971. In 1972, he was serving as a Court-Martialed, he was then arrested with allegations of
embezzlement and some other irregularities during his tenure in Bangladesh (1971).

1. Mr. Uppal was dismissed from the post and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

2. Aggrieved with punishment, he filed a review application but received no positive result.
Subsequently, he filed a post- affirmation application to which he procured are ply after 11 years, by
then, the review period had expired.

3. Mr.Uppal, later on, discoveredthathisapplicationsanddocumentsgotmisplacedduetoastrike bya group

of advocates, which resulted in the delay in reply.

4. Frustrated with the injustice caused, Mr. Uppal filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme
Court to challenge the action of strikes and call for boycotts by advocates and sought strict action to be
taken against it This case raises fundamental questions aboutthe rights and responsibilities of lawyers,
the impact of strikes on the judicial system, and the need to strike a balance between

Issues Raised
1. Whether Advocates have the right to strike or call for boycotts under Article 19(1)(c)?

2. What impact do strikes by advocates make on the administration of justice and the rights of clients?

3. The Justification for the illegality of the strikes and boycotts by advocates whilst balancing the interest
of advocates with the functioning of the legal system.

5. Identification and explanation of the 'rarest of rare cases' where strikes might be permissible to the
advocates.

6. How do strikes affect the adjudication of cases?

CONTENTIONS
In the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Petitioner) vs. Union of India and another (Respondent), the main
arguments presented by each side can be summarized as follows

Petitioner (HarishUppal)
1. The petitioner primarily argued that the strikes and call for boycotts undertaken by the advocates are
unlawful, and unjust and shall be banned by the courts. These kinds of strikes become a hindrance in the
dispensation of justice and render outrageous delays in the legal proceedings, affecting the efficient
disposal of cases.

2. The petitioner argued that the strikes by advocates infringed the client's interest and their right to be
tried within a reasonable time. He highlighted that strikes also lead to them is placement of documents,
which is unjust and incorporates irregularities in the legal administration process.

3. The petitioner argued that the advocates are the officers of the court, and by acquiring that position
they shall adhere to certain obligations towards the court, clients, and society at large. Therefore, they
must aid in the smooth functioning of the judiciary and timely adjudication of the cases for effective
deliverance of justice. Nonetheless, such strikes clearly compose a violation of the duties endangering
the integrity of the legal profession as well as amounting to professional misconduct.

4. The petitioner pleaded under the court to take strict action against strikes and boycotts by the
advocates, penalize such actions, and safeguard the interests of the litigants.

Respondent(Union of India)
1. The respondents argued that the advocates also have the right to go on strike under Article 19(1)(c) of
the Indian Constitution. Like any other association of people, advocates can also form an association or
group to go on strike and ask for their welfare and rights.

2. The respondents argued that in some appropriate cases where the advocates find no effective
medium to communicate with the authorities, in such cases, a strike is considered the only medium to
voice their opinions and demands.

3. The respondent argued that taking disciplinary action against the advocates on

Judgment
1. The Honorable Supreme Court strongly condemned the action of strikes and boycotts by the
advocates and held it unlawful. Even a call for a strike is equally unacceptable by law hence, advocates
have no right to strike. The court directed the Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to
monitor illegal strikes undertaken by the advocates and strict action shall be taken for the same.
Necessary measures shall be taken to prohibit such strikes.

2. The Advocates who participate in illegal strikes are liable to face disciplinary actions from their
respective State Bar Councils, which can result in suspension of their license or cancellation as well.

3. The Advocates participating in unlawful strikes and boycotts can be held liable for contempt of court

4. Thecourtheldonlyinrarecircumstanceswheretheintegrity,respect,andworkingoftheBar Association is at
stake, a strike may be permitted, for instance, a conflict of interest between two or more groups of
lawyers or some sort of confrontation with the administration or grievance with a judgment of the court
or presiding officer, etc.
5. The court held all the grievances that are possible to be resolved by law should be done by
approaching the courts and not by protests.

6. The court held if any protest is required to be undertaken by the advocates, it can only be done by
publishing statements in the press, TV interviews, carrying banners signifying the matter of resentment
outside the premises of the court, issuing notices for that matter, wearing black or white or any kind of
bands on the arms, a march of protest outside the court. premises or away from the court, etc., but all
that shall be done in a peace full manner that doesn't disturb the working of the court.

7. The court further held that in the rare cases where protest is permitted, no advocate can be forced to
become a part of the protest without their free will..

8. The Court held those advocates whose names appear on vakalatnama (a document to authorize an
Advocate to represent a client) can't deny representing their client's case under the pretext of strikes.

9.The court highlighted that strikes and boycotts affect the interest of clients and their right to legal
representation. It noted that the primary goal of the legal profession is to en sure justice is served
without delay and strikes impede the right of the client to a speedy trial.

10. The court emphasized the duty of the advocates as the officers of the court. It is imperative for them
to help the court in the speedy disposal of the case, proper administration of justice, and timely delivery
of effective judgment, but the strikes are contrary to their duties and create hindrance in the working of
the judicial system.

Conclusion
The case of Harish Uppal v. Union of india (2003) decided on 17th December 2002 by Supreme Court is a
landmark case in the landscape of India. The case shed light on the matter of strikes by advocates and by
other officers performing vital roles in the mechanism of the legal system, herein the judiciary has
explicitly clarified that such strikes degrade the noble profession of advocacy and delay the process of
providing justice, it also violates the interest of litigants. The case emphasized the nobility of the legal
profession and reminded advocates of their role to be protectors of the rule of law and not disruptors so
that the general public can have faith in the legal fraternity

The case reaffirmed the fundamental duties of the advocates to comply with basic standards of
professional conduct, if not maintained, will have serious repercussions. The Supreme Court concluded
the case by giving judgment in such a manner that maintained an equilibrium between the interest of
advocates and the litigants and also upheld the sanctity of the legal profession.

My opinion
The ruling of the case serves as a precedent and acts as a guiding path to aid the judges while deciding
upon similar cases in the future. Lawyers are considered officers of the court and have a duty to ensure
the smooth functioning of the legal system, which includes appearing in court and representing their
clients without interruptions caused by strikes.
The case highlights the significance of balancing the interests of lawyers with the needs of the legal
system. While lawyers' grievances should be heard and addressed, they must not compromise the right
of clients to timely justice î

This case serves as a cornerstone in understanding the professional ethics and responsibilities of lawyers
with in the lndian legal system.