EX- CAPTAIN

HARISH UPPAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA

(2003) 2 SCC 45
Facts
➢Plaintiff: Ex-Captain Harish Uppal, a retired army officer accused of embezzlement in
Bangladesh.
➢1972: Uppal dismissed from service and imprisoned following court-martial.
➢Applications for review filed but not responded to for 11 years.
➢Reason for delay: lawyer strike causing document misplacement.
➢Uppal argues lawyer strikes are illegal and cause undue delays in the justice system.
➢Request: Supreme Court to declare lawyer strikes unlawful

3/26/2024
Issues
➢Whether lawyers have the right to go on a strike under Art 19(1)c or give a call
for boycott?

3/26/2024
Arguments Petitioner
➢Coercion and Unethical Practice: Strikes are seen as a form of coercion and manipulate the courts,
which is unethical.

➢Contempt of Court: Lawyers and committees involved in strikes should be held in contempt of court
and face consequences like debarment.

➢Violation of Client Agreement: Lawyers who accept a Vakalat (authorization) have a duty to appear
in court, and strikes violate this agreement.

➢Need for Regulations: The Bar Council should establish stricter regulations to prevent lawyer
strikes.

3/26/2024
Contd…
➢Disruption of Judicial Process: Strikes disrupt the organized functioning of the judicial system,
causing delays in court proceedings.

➢Harm to Clients' Interests: Delays due to strikes jeopardize the interests of clients who rely on
timely resolution of their cases.

➢Document Misplacement: Strikes can lead to document misplacement, further hindering progress in
legal cases.

➢Breach of Professional Duty: Lawyers have a duty to uphold the legal system and resorting to
strikes breaches this responsibility.

3/26/2024
Arguments Respondent
➢Right to Strike as Freedom of Association: Respondents argue that Article 19(c) of the Constitution
guarantees the right to form associations, which implicitly includes the right to strike.

➢Collective Bargaining: Similar to other professions, lawyers deserve the right to assemble and
collectively bargain for their interests.

➢Bar Council's Discretion: The decision of whether or not to strike should be left to the Bar Council's
discretion, allowing them to determine feasibility and appropriateness.

3/26/2024
Judgement
➢The Supreme Court ruled that lawyer strikes are generally illegal, citing several key points:

➢Officers of the Court: Lawyers have a special duty as officers of the court to uphold its functioning.
Strikes disrupt court proceedings and hinder access to justice, contradicting this duty.

➢Detrimental Effects: Strikes cause delays in trials, contribute to case backlog (pendency), and violate
the right to a speedy trial (Article 21). These disruptions are detrimental to the legal system.

3/26/2024
Contd…
➢Alternative Methods of Expression: Lawyers can use various alternative methods to express their
grievances, such as press statements, interviews, wearing armbands, and engaging with the media.

➢Limited Exception: Strikes are only permissible in "rare and extreme situations" where the integrity
of the court is at risk

3/26/2024
Analysis
➢Lawyer Strikes in India: A Balancing Act

➢History of Court's Stance:

➢Early judgments:

➢Arunava Ghosh v. Bar Council of West Bengal: Strikes might be Contempt of Court under Article
21.

➢Mahavir Prasad v. Jacks Aviation Ltd.: Lawyers cannot impede court from essential proceedings.

➢Krishnakant Tamrakar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh-Irreversible harm

➢Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar- Speedy Trial under Art 21 Upheld

3/26/2024
Contd…
➢Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr.: Strikes are illegal due to:
◦ Detrimental impact on the legal system and right to speedy trial (Article 21).
◦ Availability of alternative methods of protest
◦ Lawyers' duty as officers of the court.

➢Limited exception: Strikes possible only in "rare and extreme situations" threatening the court's
integrity

3/26/2024
Conclusion
➢Key Takeaways from the Case on Lawyer Strikes:

➢Lawyers' Duties:
o The case emphasizes lawyers' role as officers of the court.
o This role comes with the responsibility of upholding the legal system's smooth operation.
o Striking disrupts court proceedings and hinders justice delivery, conflicting with their duty.

➢Balancing Interests:
➢The case acknowledges the importance of both clients' right to timely justice and lawyers' legitimate
concerns.

3/26/2024
Contd..
➢Alternative Solutions:

The judgement encourages lawyers to express grievances through alternative methods like:
◦ Press releases
◦ Media interviews
◦ Peaceful protests outside courts
◦ Engaging with the media

3/26/2024
Contd…
➢Significance of the Case:

This case sets a precedent by clearly defining:

◦ Lawyers' responsibilities in court
◦ Expected code of conduct

➢Overall Impact:
◦ The case aims to ensure the legal profession prioritizes its core function - administering justice to
the public

3/26/2024