Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench Declares Advocate Strike Illegal, Issues Contempt Show-Cause Notices to Bar Office-Bearers
The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench declared a nine-day advocate strike illegal, issued contempt show-cause notices to bar office-bearers and three named advocates, and directed district grievance panels across Uttar Pradesh to include District Magistrates.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court sitting at Lucknow, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti, on 8 June 2026 declared the strike and boycott of judicial work by advocates of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow and the Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow from 18 May 2026 to 26 May 2026 as unjustified and illegal. The bench issued show-cause notices to the office-bearers of both associations and to three individual advocates, calling on them to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated and why their conduct should not be referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The order also directed the Registrar General to expand district-level Grievance Redressal Committees across the State by including the District Magistrate or a nominee of not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate.
The Strike and What Triggered the PIL
The matter arises from Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2026, filed by Anuradha Singh and others against the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow, and others. The petitioners are represented by Vijai Shankar Tripathi, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Kuldeep Verma, and Umesh Singh. The State and other respondents are represented by the Government Advocate, Aniket Srivastav, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Jyotiresh Pandey, Mrs. Suniti Sachan, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, and Shailendra Singh Chauhan.
The Central Bar Association, Lucknow and the Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow passed resolutions to abstain from work from 18 May 2026 to 20 May 2026, describing the abstinence as “Samuhik Avakash.” The strike, however, continued beyond that period. The District Judge, Lucknow submitted a confidential report to the court dated 23 May 2026, enclosing a pen-drive containing videos of bar association meetings and a video in which one advocate was seen distributing plastic lathies — of the kind commonly used by police and PAC personnel — to fellow advocates, with slogans that advocates would handle the administration by force.
The Lucknow Nagar Nigam separately produced a letter dated 23 May 2026 addressed to the District Magistrate and Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Lucknow, reporting that at Chakbast Crossing near Swasthya Bhawan, only 14 out of 72 marked illegal encroachments could be removed on 17 May 2026 because advocates present at the spot created obstructions and hindrances, preventing compliance with the court's earlier order.
The Legal Framework: Supreme Court Precedents on Advocate Strikes
The bench placed the present facts against a settled line of Supreme Court authority. The Constitution Bench in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, held that lawyers have no right to go on strike, token strike, or even give a call for strike. Before that, in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, the Supreme Court held that a strike by lawyers amounts not only to contempt of court but also to professional misconduct.
This position has been reiterated in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 295; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27; District Bar Association Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar, (2020) 17 SCC 672; and In Re: Assault on Two Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association at District Court Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar, (2024) SCC Online SC 1016. In District Bar Association Dehradun, the Supreme Court observed that the right to speedy justice is now recognised as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that a four-day monthly strike by advocates cannot be justified when courts face serious arrears.
The bench also noted that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be used to justify a strike or boycott that affects the rights of litigants to speedy justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21.
Prior Contempt Proceedings and the August 2024 Directions
The present PIL is not the first time this bench has addressed the strike menace in Uttar Pradesh. In Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 12 of 2024, the court took cognizance on a report from the District Judge, Prayagraj, showing that between July 2023 and April 2024, lawyers in the District Court, Prayagraj abstained from work on 127 out of 218 working days — the court functioned on only 41.74 per cent of days.
By its order dated 7 August 2024 in that contempt application, the bench issued four binding directions applicable across Uttar Pradesh: any act of a lawyer or association to go on strike or abstain from work would be treated as an ex facie act of criminal contempt; all District Judges were directed to report any strike to the Registrar General along with the names of office-bearers responsible; lawyers were directed not to abstain from work even for condolence meetings, which were to be held only after 3:30 PM; and these directions were to be displayed on notice boards of all courts in the State.
The Registrar General circulated these directions to all District Judges by letter dated 7 September 2024, with copies directed to be forwarded to Principal Judges of Family Courts, Presiding Officers of Commercial Courts, MACTS, LARRAS, and the Presidents and Secretaries of Bar Associations in each district. The bench found that all bar associations in Uttar Pradesh were therefore fully aware of these directions when the May 2026 strike was called.
Bar Councils' Own Resolutions Against Strikes
The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had itself passed a resolution as far back as 5 November 2011 warning that frequent strikes were disrupting courts, lowering the image of the Bar, and threatening the Bar Council's own relevance. That resolution called on lawyers to approach the Bar Council for redressal of local grievances instead of calling strikes, and warned of disciplinary proceedings against office-bearers who violated the norms. The resolution was reiterated on 28 November 2022.
A further resolution dated 13 February 2023 directed that even on protest days, witnesses present for deposition or cross-examination should not be obstructed. Resolution No. 1869/21, passed in the Bar Council's general meeting on 21 January 2024, directed that even in condolence situations, lawyers should not abstain from work but should hold condolence meetings only at 3:30 PM so that judicial work is not affected.
Before the bench on 8 June 2026, Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Counsel and Chairman of the Bar Council of India (appearing through virtual mode), and R.K. Ojha, Senior Counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the District Bar Association, Prayagraj, both stated categorically that their bodies are opposed to lawyers going on strike and that the Supreme Court's judgment in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal is the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, binding on all courts within the territory of India.
The Plastic Lathies Incident and Individual Conduct
The bench took particular note of the conduct of three individual advocates. The District Judge, Lucknow brought to the court's attention that the General Secretary of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow had issued show-cause notices on 21 May 2026 against: Sri Uttam Tripathi, Advocate, who distributed plastic lathies to advocates; Sri Himanshu Mishra, Advocate, who posted and delivered speeches on social media to provoke advocates against the administration and police; and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for irresponsible personal comments about the Administrative Judge, Lucknow that created unrest among advocates.
The Central Bar Association subsequently issued an expulsion letter dated 4 June 2026 against Sri Uttam Tripathi and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, expelling them for five years from primary membership of the association after considering their explanations.
The bench acknowledged that the Central Bar Association had taken action against two of the erring advocates. It treated this as a relevant circumstance in deciding, at this stage, not to initiate ex facie criminal contempt proceedings immediately, but instead to issue show-cause notices first.
Expanding the Grievance Redressal Mechanism
Both the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh submitted before the bench that lawyers sometimes face genuine difficulties that go unaddressed, leaving them with no option but to strike. They suggested that a Grievance Redressal Committee at district level should include a representative of the district administration.
The bench noted that in compliance of the Supreme Court's direction in District Bar Association Dehradun, a Grievance Redressal Committee had already been constituted at the High Court level, presided over by the Chief Justice, with the following composition: the Chief Justice, Justice Rajan Roy, Justice Faiz Alam Khan, the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and the President of the High Court Bar Association. This committee was constituted vide order of the Chief Justice dated 3 May 2023 pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated 20 April 2023 in M.A. 859 of 2020 in SLP (C) No. 5440 of 2020.
At district level, the existing Grievance Redressal Committee comprised the District Judge, Additional District Judge-I, Chief Judicial Magistrate, D.G.C. (Civil and Criminal), and the President of the Bar Association of the concerned district. The bench accepted the suggestion of the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and directed the Registrar General to issue necessary directions to all District Judges throughout Uttar Pradesh to include the District Magistrate or a nominee of not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate as a member of the district-level Grievance Redressal Committee.
Outcome
The bench declared the strike and boycott of judicial work by advocates of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow and the Lucknow Bar Association, Lucknow from 18 May 2026 to 26 May 2026 as unjustified and illegal, with consequential orders to follow.
Show-cause notices were issued to the office-bearers of both bar associations and to Sri Uttam Tripathi, Sri Himanshu Mishra, and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, requiring them to explain within two weeks why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated and why their misconduct should not be referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. Each notice-recipient is required to submit an explanation supported by an affidavit undertaking to follow the Supreme Court's directions and to maintain good conduct. Notices to the three individual advocates are to be served through the General Secretary of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow.
The Registrar General was directed to issue necessary directions to all District Judges to include the District Magistrate or a nominee of not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate in the district-level Grievance Redressal Committee.
The Additional Government Advocate, S.P. Singh, was directed to apprise the court of the outcome of investigation in the matter by the next date. Impleadment and intervention applications filed by several advocates and bar associations — I.A. Nos. 3 to 7 of 2026 — were directed to be served on all parties within 48 hours, with objections to be filed by the next date. Further applications for intervention were permitted to be filed given the PIL nature of the proceedings.
The case is listed for 27 July 2026 at 3:00 PM before a bench to be constituted with appropriate orders from the Chief Justice.