Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2023
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can strikes by lawyers be avoided by addressing their genuine grievances? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question by directing the establishment of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) in High Courts and District Courts. This move aims to provide a structured platform for advocates to voice their concerns, potentially reducing the frequency of strikes and ensuring a more efficient justice system. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
The Bar Council of India filed an application seeking the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) at various levels to address the grievances of advocates and Bar Associations. This application stemmed from concerns over frequent strikes and boycotts by lawyers, which disrupt court proceedings and the justice delivery system. The Bar Council of India, in its affidavit dated 15.09.2021, proposed measures to control strikes and suggested a mechanism for grievance redressal at all levels. The Council emphasized that while strikes are unacceptable, genuine grievances of advocates need to be addressed. The Bar Council of India highlighted that unresolved issues, such as procedural changes in filing or listing of cases and misbehavior by judicial officers, often lead to strikes. Therefore, a grievance redressal mechanism was deemed necessary to ensure that advocates feel heard and their concerns are addressed.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15.09.2021 | Bar Council of India files affidavit suggesting measures to control strikes and a grievance redressal mechanism. |
| 20.04.2023 | Supreme Court issues order directing High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees. |
Course of Proceedings
The Bar Council of India, through its Chairman, Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, submitted that frequent strikes and boycotts by advocates are detrimental to the justice system. The Council acknowledged that while such practices cannot be condoned, genuine grievances of advocates often lead to these actions. The Bar Council proposed a grievance redressal mechanism at all levels, from Taluka courts to High Courts, to address issues such as procedural changes, misbehavior by judicial officers, and other serious concerns. The Supreme Court, recognizing the need to balance the smooth functioning of the courts with the legitimate concerns of advocates, considered the Bar Council’s submissions and issued directions for the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees.
Legal Framework
There is no specific legal framework discussed in the judgment.
Arguments
The Bar Council of India argued that:
✓ Frequent strikes and boycotts by advocates disrupt the justice delivery system.
✓ While strikes are unacceptable, genuine grievances of advocates need to be addressed.
✓ A grievance redressal mechanism is essential to address issues like procedural changes in filing or listing of cases, misbehavior by judicial officers, and other serious concerns.
✓ Such a mechanism would provide a platform for advocates to voice their concerns, potentially reducing the frequency of strikes.
✓ The mechanism should be available at all levels from Taluka courts to High Courts.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Need for Grievance Redressal Mechanism |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues but addressed the need for Grievance Redressal Committees.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Need for a Grievance Redressal Mechanism for Advocates | The Court directed all High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees, headed by the Chief Justice, with other senior judges and members of the Bar. The Court also suggested that similar committees be formed at the District Court level. |
Authorities
No authorities were cited in the judgment.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Need for Grievance Redressal Mechanism | The Court agreed with the submission and directed the formation of Grievance Redressal Committees in High Courts and suggested similar committees at the District Court level. |
The Supreme Court reiterated that strikes and abstention from court work by advocates are unacceptable. The Court acknowledged the need for a mechanism to address genuine grievances of advocates. The Court directed all High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees, headed by the Chief Justice, with two other senior judges, the Advocate General, the Chairman of the State Bar Council, and the President of the High Court Bar Association as members. The Court also suggested the formation of similar committees at the District Court level. The Court emphasized that the grievances considered by these committees should be genuine and not aimed at putting pressure on judicial officers.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by the need to address genuine grievances of advocates while ensuring the smooth functioning of the justice system. The Court recognized that unresolved issues often lead to strikes, which disrupt court proceedings. By establishing Grievance Redressal Committees, the Court aimed to provide a structured mechanism for advocates to voice their concerns and have them addressed, thereby reducing the need for strikes. The Court’s emphasis on the genuineness of the grievances highlights its intention to prevent the misuse of the mechanism for putting undue pressure on judicial officers.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to address genuine grievances of advocates | 40% |
| Importance of smooth functioning of the justice system | 30% |
| Unacceptability of strikes and boycotts | 20% |
| Prevention of misuse of the mechanism | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of addressing genuine grievances of advocates to maintain the smooth functioning of the justice system. The Court observed, “no member of the Bar can go on strike and/or abstain himself from court working.” The Court also noted, “If the member of the Bar has any genuine grievance or the difficulty being faced because of the procedural changes in filing/listing of the matters and/or any genuine grievance pertaining to misbehave of any member of the lower judiciary they can very well make a representation.” The Court directed, “we request all the High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committee in their respective High Courts.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ High Courts are directed to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees headed by the Chief Justice.
- ✓ Similar committees may also be formed at the District Court level.
- ✓ Strikes and abstention from court work by advocates are unacceptable.
- ✓ Genuine grievances of advocates must be addressed through the grievance redressal mechanism.
- ✓ Grievances must be genuine and not aimed at putting pressure on judicial officers.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees. The Court also directed the Registry to send copies of the order to the Registrar General of all the High Courts for further steps.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the existing law against strikes by advocates. It also introduces a structured mechanism for grievance redressal by directing the formation of Grievance Redressal Committees in High Courts and District Courts. This move aims to address the root causes of strikes by providing a platform for advocates to voice their concerns and have them addressed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order directing the formation of Grievance Redressal Committees in High Courts and District Courts is a significant step towards addressing the grievances of advocates and reducing the frequency of strikes. By providing a structured mechanism for advocates to voice their concerns, the Court aims to ensure a smoother and more efficient justice delivery system. The judgment reinforces the principle that while strikes are unacceptable, genuine grievances must be addressed.