Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 405
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can the frequent strikes and boycotts by advocates be controlled? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue by directing the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) at various levels of the judiciary. This order aims to provide a platform for advocates to voice their concerns, thereby reducing the need for strikes. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
The Bar Council of India filed an application seeking the formation of Grievance Redressal Committees to address the concerns of advocates and Bar Associations at different levels of the judiciary. The application was filed in the context of frequent strikes and boycotts by advocates, which disrupt court proceedings and hinder the justice delivery system. The Bar Council of India proposed that these committees would provide a platform for advocates to raise their grievances, potentially reducing the need for such disruptive actions.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15.09.2021 | Bar Council of India filed an affidavit suggesting measures to control strikes and boycotts, including a grievance redressal mechanism. |
| 20.04.2023 | Supreme Court issued an order directing the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees. |
Course of Proceedings
The Bar Council of India, concerned about the frequent strikes and boycotts by advocates, filed an application in M.A. No. 859 of 2020 in SLP (C) No. 5440 of 2020. This application sought directions for the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) at various levels of the judiciary. The Bar Council of India had previously submitted an affidavit on 15.09.2021, proposing measures to control strikes and boycotts, which included a mechanism for addressing the grievances of advocates and Bar Associations.
Legal Framework
The judgment does not cite any specific legal provisions or statutes. However, it emphasizes the importance of a functional grievance redressal mechanism within the justice system. The court’s order is based on its inherent power to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system and to address the concerns of its stakeholders, including advocates.
Arguments
The Bar Council of India, represented by Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, argued that frequent strikes and boycotts by advocates are detrimental to the justice system. They proposed that a grievance redressal mechanism would allow advocates to voice their concerns, potentially reducing the need for strikes. The Bar Council of India submitted that many times, members of the Bar have genuine grievances, such as dissatisfaction with procedural changes or misbehavior by members of the lower judiciary, and if these grievances are not addressed, it leads to strikes. The Bar Council of India emphasized that such practices are not approved or encouraged by the Bar Councils.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Need for Grievance Redressal Mechanism |
|
| Bar Council’s Position |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether Grievance Redressal Committees should be constituted at various levels of the judiciary to address the concerns of advocates and Bar Associations?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether Grievance Redressal Committees should be constituted at various levels of the judiciary to address the concerns of advocates and Bar Associations? | The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees headed by the Chief Justice, with other senior judges and members of the Bar, to address genuine grievances of advocates, aiming to reduce strikes and boycotts. |
Authorities
The judgment does not cite any specific cases or books. The court’s decision is based on its inherent power to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system and to address the concerns of its stakeholders.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| None | Not applicable |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Need for Grievance Redressal Mechanism | The Court acknowledged the need for a mechanism to address genuine grievances of advocates and directed the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees. |
| Bar Council’s Position | The Court agreed with the Bar Council’s view that strikes and boycotts are detrimental and that a grievance redressal mechanism is necessary. |
The Supreme Court reiterated that no member of the Bar can go on strike or abstain from court work. However, it acknowledged that advocates may have genuine grievances. The Court directed all High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) headed by the Chief Justice, with other senior judges and members of the Bar, to address genuine grievances of advocates. The Court also suggested that the High Courts may consider constituting similar committees at the District Court level.
The Court emphasized that the GRC should consider genuine grievances related to procedural changes in filing or listing of matters, or misbehavior by members of the lower judiciary. However, it cautioned that such grievances must be genuine and not intended to put pressure on any judicial officer.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the smooth functioning of the judicial system and to address the genuine grievances of advocates. The Court recognized that frequent strikes and boycotts by advocates disrupt court proceedings and hinder the delivery of justice. By establishing Grievance Redressal Committees, the Court aimed to provide a platform for advocates to voice their concerns, thereby reducing the need for such disruptive actions. The Court also emphasized the importance of addressing genuine grievances related to procedural changes and misbehavior by judicial officers, while cautioning against the misuse of the grievance mechanism to exert pressure on the judiciary.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to maintain smooth functioning of the judiciary | 40% |
| Need to address genuine grievances of advocates | 35% |
| Concern over frequent strikes and boycotts | 15% |
| Caution against misuse of grievance mechanism | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court considered various aspects, including the need to ensure the smooth functioning of the judiciary, the importance of addressing genuine grievances of advocates, and the detrimental impact of frequent strikes and boycotts. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a functional grievance redressal mechanism is essential for maintaining a healthy and efficient justice system.
The court did not consider any alternative interpretations and directly ordered the constitution of the GRCs.
The decision was reached by directing all High Courts to constitute GRCs, with the aim of providing a platform for advocates to voice their concerns and reduce the need for strikes.
The Court’s decision was to direct the High Courts to constitute the GRCs.
The court gave the following reasons for its decision:
- Strikes and boycotts by advocates disrupt court proceedings.
- Genuine grievances of advocates need to be addressed.
- A grievance redressal mechanism is essential for a healthy justice system.
- The GRCs will provide a platform for advocates to voice their concerns.
- The GRCs will help reduce the need for strikes and boycotts.
The Court quoted:
“no member of the Bar can go on strike and/or abstain himself from court working.”
“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 and it is appropriate that their genuine grievances are considered by some forum so that such strikes can be avoided”
“The Grievance Redressal Committee may consider the genuine grievance related to the difference of opinion or dissatisfaction because of procedural changes in filing/listing of the matters of the respective High Courts or any District Courts in their respective States and any genuine grievance pertaining to misbehave of any member of the lower judiciary, provided such grievance must be genuine and not to keep the pressure on any judicial officer.”
There were no minority opinions in this judgment.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to balance the rights of advocates to voice their concerns with the need to maintain the smooth functioning of the judicial system. The Court’s decision to direct the constitution of GRCs was aimed at providing a structured mechanism for addressing grievances, thereby reducing the need for disruptive actions like strikes and boycotts. The Court’s interpretation of the legal framework was based on its inherent power to ensure the proper administration of justice.
The potential implications for future cases are that it sets a precedent for the establishment of grievance redressal mechanisms within the judiciary. This could lead to a more structured and efficient way of addressing the concerns of advocates, potentially reducing the frequency of strikes and boycotts.
No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The Court’s decision was based on its inherent power to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system and to address the concerns of its stakeholders.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts are directed to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC).
- GRCs will be headed by the Chief Justice and include senior judges and members of the Bar.
- GRCs will address genuine grievances of advocates related to procedural changes and misbehavior by judicial officers.
- The aim is to reduce strikes and boycotts by providing a platform for advocates to voice their concerns.
- This order sets a precedent for establishing grievance redressal mechanisms within the judiciary.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) in their respective High Courts. The GRC should be headed by the Chief Justice and include two other senior Judges (one from service and one from the Bar), the Advocate General, the Chairman of the Bar Council of the State, and the President of the High Court Bar Association. The High Courts may also consider constituting similar GRCs at the District Court level. The Registry was directed to send copies of the order to the Registrars General of all High Courts.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must constitute Grievance Redressal Committees to address the genuine grievances of advocates, with the aim of reducing strikes and boycotts. This order does not change any previous position of law but rather provides a mechanism for addressing issues within the existing legal framework.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in the case of District Bar Association Dehradun vs. Ishwar Shandilya directs the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees in all High Courts and potentially at the District Court level. This measure aims to provide a structured platform for advocates to voice their concerns, thereby reducing the occurrence of strikes and boycotts. The decision underscores the importance of addressing genuine grievances within the justice system to ensure its smooth and efficient functioning.