JUDGMENT Sri Nanak Chand Gupta, Advocate has filed this Writ Petition No. 661 (M/B) of 2005 praying to quash resolution dated 18-6-05 of the Bar Council of Uttaranchal giving a call to all Advocates and Associations of Advocates to observe strike on 5th July, 2005 and to direct the respondent Bar Council of Uttaranchal to withdraw the call for strike forthwith. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 13-6-05. However, in view of the submission made by Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, who accepted notice for the respondent that an emergency meeting of the Bar Council of Uttaranchal was scheduled to take place at 11.00 A.M. on 1th July, 2005 to re-consider the resolution passed on 18-6-05, this case stood adjourned to 04th July, 2005. 3. Today Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent, submitted that in the meeting held on 01st July, 2005 a resolution was passed by the Bar Council of Uttaranchal recalling the proposed strike on 15th July, 2005 and hence this writ petition has become infructuous. However, the petitioner Sri Nanak Chand Gupta submitted that the said resolution of July 01, 2005 was not passed unanimously and hence there is still possibility of atleast some advocates, observing strike on 05th July, 2005. Sri Gupta further submitted that appropriate directions may be issued by this Court in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harish Uapal vs. Union of India and another(2003) 2 SCC 45. 4. Having regard to the frequent recurrence of strike by lawyers at different places, we also find it necessary that everyone concerned is reminded about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned case. 5. Hence, though this writ petition has technically become infructuous it is disposed of with the following orders and directions :- (1) Lawyers have no right to strike i.e. to abstain from appearing in Court in cases in which they hold Vakalatnama for the parties, even if it is in response to or in compliance with a decision of any Association or body of lawyers. It is the duty of every advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is the duty of every advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. A lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court merely because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association or Bar Council. It is unprofessional as well as unbecoming of a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend the Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or by the Bar Council. If lawyers participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex facie bad. A lawyer's duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of Courts. (2) It is the duty of a Bar Council to ensure that there is no unprofessional or unbecoming conduct by advocates. No Bar Council can even consider giving a call for strike or a call for boycott. In case any association of lawyers calls for a strike or boycott, the State Bar Council must immediately take disciplinary action against the advocates who give a call for strike. (3) So long as a lawyer holds Vakalatnama for his client and has not been duly discharged, he has no right to abstain from appearing in Court even on the ground of a strike called by a Bar Association or any other body of lawyers. If he so abstains he commits professional misconduct, a breach of professional duty, a breach of contract and also a breach of trust and he will be liable to suffer all the consequences thereof. The advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their client if non appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call. (4) Either in the name of a strike or otherwise no lawyer has any right to obstruct or prevent any other lawyer from discharging his professional duty of appearing in Court. If anyone does it, he commits a criminal offence and interferes with the administration of justice and commits contempt of Court and he is liable to be proceeded against on all these counts. (5) Every Court has a solemn duty to proceed with the judicial business during the Court hours and the Court is not obliged to adjourn a case because of a strike call. (5) Every Court has a solemn duty to proceed with the judicial business during the Court hours and the Court is not obliged to adjourn a case because of a strike call. The Court is under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it and it cannot shirk that obligation on the ground that the advocates are on strike. If the counselor/and the party does not appear, the necessary consequence contemplated in law is to follow. The Court should not become privy to the strike by adjourning the case on the ground that the lawyers are on strike. Strike 'infringes the litigants' fundamental right for speedy trial and the Court cannot remain a mute spectator or throw up its hands in helplessness on the face of such continued violation of the fundamental right. Hence, if the Presiding Officer of a Court refuses to proceed with the judicial work during Court hours or adjourns a case because of a strike call, it will be viewed as dereliction of duty and misconduct on his/her part. (6) Every Court should mulct advocates who hold Vakalats but still refrain from attending Courts in pursuance of a strike call with costs. Such costs would be in addition to 'the damages which the advocate may have to pay for the loss suffered by his client by reason of his non-appearance. (7) However, a protest on an issue involving dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and the judiciary, provided it does not exceed one day, may De overlooked by Courts who may turn a blind eye for that one day. 6. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to communicate this judgment to the Presiding Officers of all the Courts through the District Judges concerned.