TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Advocate Manoj Laxman Shirsat and another by the resident of Mumbai City as pro bono publico. Both the writ petitions are filed seeking similar reliefs concerning the resolution dated 26th March 2017 passed by the Bar Council of India wherein they have passed the following resolutions which are at page 22, which read as under: "1. The Council gives a call and request to all the Bar Councils, Bar Associations to abstain from court's work on 31.3.2017, this will be in the token of protest of the lawyers against the proposed amendment Bill, 2017 of Law Commission of India. 2. The Council further resolves to convene a meeting of all the Members of State Bar Councils/ representatives, members of adhoc Committee of Special Committees, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Council of Maharashtra and Goa dated 27th March 2017, which reads as under: "APPEAL is made to ALL THE ENROLLED ADVOCATES of Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, that the Law Commission of India has proposed Amendments in Advocates Act, 1961 by "Amendment Bill 2017". The said proposed amendments are undemocratic and Antilawyers. Therefore, the Bar Council of India has given call to all the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to abstain from Court Work on 31/03/2017. Therefore in the form of a token of protest against the proposed Amendment Bill 2017, we have to abstain from Court Work on 31/03/2017 for One Day." 3. The petitioners have referred to the popular judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ExCapt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is justification on the part of the Bar Council of India in calling for abstain from work in terms of the resolution referred to above. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council for State of Maharashtra and Goa tries to distinguish between the strike undertaken by the local Bar Association on account of several circumstances and a national/ apex body of lawyers giving call in the common interest of all the lawyers community. Therefore, according to him, this is a special situation where the Courts must appreciate the situation from a different angle having regard to various grievances espoused at AnnexureA before passing the resolution in question. He further submits that since the parent/ apex body i.e. Bar Council of India gav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggestions made could be implemented. 7. Then coming to the present situation, according to the petitioners, the call now given for the lawyers to abstain from Court work on 31st March 2017, is nothing but a strike which cannot be undertaken by the lawyers community. In ExCapt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (supra), the relevant paragraphs are 45 and 46, which read as under: 45. In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him. 46. It is now hoped that with the above clarifications, there will be no strikes and/or calls for boycott. It is hoped that better sense will prevail and self restraint will be exercised. The Petitions stand disposed off accordingly. 8. If one has to understand the implication or consequences of abstaining from work in general terms, the strike would mean abstaining from work apart form other meanings. I....