ORDER In this petition, petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ or direction as against the resolutions of the 1st respondent directing the Advocates not to participate in any program organised by the Legal Service Authorities in any Lok Adalath or any legal aid programs as illegal, void and inoperative and also to issue appropriate order restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from giving effect to the resolution issued at Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent and the 2nd resolution at Annexure-B, dated 24-10-2002 passed by the 1st respondent and directing the 2nd respondent to follow the same and also quash the resolution at Annexure-C, dated 26-10-2002 and Annexure-D, dated 29-10-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent to all the Bar Associations of the State. 2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case, has relied upon the following decisions: C. Ravichandran Iyer v Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and Others1; Ramon Services Private Limited v Sub hash Kapoor and Others2; Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v Union of India and Another3; Sushma Suri v Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another4. 4. In the decision in the case of Ex. Capt. Barish Uppal's case, the Apex Court has held that, Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides for functions of the Bar Council of India and none of the functions mentioned therein authorise paralyzing of the working of Courts in any manner. On the contrary, the Bar Council of India is enjoined with a duty to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for Advocates. This would mean; the Bar Council of India ensures that the Advocates do not behave in a non-professional and unbecoming manner. Similarly, Section 48-B gives a right to the Bar Council of India to give directions to the State Bar Councils. As per Section 38, even in respect of disciplinary jurisdiction, the final Appellate Authority is the Bar Council. It has further observed that it is the duty of the Bar Council to ensure that there is no unprofessional and unbecoming conduct and therefore, no Bar Council can even consider· giving a call of strike or a call for boycott. As per Section 38, even in respect of disciplinary jurisdiction, the final Appellate Authority is the Bar Council. It has further observed that it is the duty of the Bar Council to ensure that there is no unprofessional and unbecoming conduct and therefore, no Bar Council can even consider· giving a call of strike or a call for boycott. In case any association calls for a strike or boycott, the State Bar Council concerned on their failure, the Bar Council of India must immediately take disciplinary action against the Advocates who give a call for strike and if the committee members permit calling of a meeting for such purpose, against the committee members. Further, it is the duty of every Advocate to boldly ignore a call of strike or boycott. 5. Of course referring to Section 38 of the Advocates Act, the Apex Court in that context, has held that on such misconduct of the Advocates, it is for the Bar Council of India or the Bar Councils to resist the occasion not to perform their duties and taking a disciplinary action on complaints being received by the litigants against their Advocates. 6. Such being the position of law as well as the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the Bar Council of India being the highest body insofar as a Advocates and in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and maintenance of discipline, resorts to come out with such a declaration to boycott the Lok Adalaths and other ancillary functions which is part of the legal system and extension of aid through extra-judicial methods meant for extending relief to the litigant public at large, such an act of boycott is contrary to the legal position and also the provisions of Sections 6(1)(eee), 6(2)(a) and (b), 7(1)(b) and (7)(2)(ab) which reads: "Section 6. (1) The functions of a State Bar Council shall be.- xxx xxx (eee) to organise legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner. xxxx xxx (2) A State Bar Council may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner for the purpose o£- xxxx xxx (b) giving legal aid or advice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf; xxxx xxx Section 7. (1) The Functions of the Bar Council of India shall be. xxxx xxx (2) A State Bar Council may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner for the purpose o£- xxxx xxx (b) giving legal aid or advice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf; xxxx xxx Section 7. (1) The Functions of the Bar Council of India shall be. (b) to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for Advocates; (2) The Bar Council of India may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner for the purpose of.- xxxx xxxx (b) Giving legal aid or advice in accordance with the rules made in the behalf. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Bar Council of India, State Bar Council and the circulars issued by the State Bar Council to various Bar Associations on the basis of the communication made by the Bar Council of India to the State Bar Council to boycott programs like Lok Adalaths and other legal aid programs or any program by the Legal Services Authority, is contrary to the mandate on the 1st respondent and are accordingly quashed.