CAV ORDER On 14.2.2014 we had heard Shri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and Shri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel, who had appeared for various Advocates, who were intended to be proceeded for contempt of Court and to whom notices had been issued by this Court. As recorded in the order of the last date, learned senior counsel tendered unqualified apology on behalf of the contemnors. We have now decided to accept the unqualified apology and drop the proceedings. This is so only because we are of the considered opinion that a matter, which is about 12 years old, should not be reopened specially when harmonious and cordial relationships were restored and are being maintained. It is prudent in the circumstances to let bygones be bygones. 2. We must notice as to what gave rise to initiation of these proceedings. Series of incidents had taken place in Patna City Civil Court on 7th and 8th of May, 2002. A section of lawyers obstructed and virtually paralyzed the normal functioning of the Patna City Civil Court. No judicial work was permitted to be conducted. A report was sent to this Court by learned District and Sessions Judge, Patna giving names of several Advocates allegedly responsible in these regards, which included the President and the General Secretary of Patna City Bar Association amongst other lawyers. Upon this report, this Court suo motu took cognizance on 8.5.2002 and issued notices of motion of contempt against them for their wilful interference in administration of justice. Show causes were filed by all the contemnors and as recorded in our earlier order, unqualified apology has now been tendered, which we have accepted. 3. But before formally closing the proceedings, we wish to make certain observations as a reminder in respect of the duties and obligations in connection with the conduct of the Advocates. 4. Every Advocate on joining the profession takes pride in stating that he has joined a noble profession and as such he expects to be treated and rightly so, but apparently little do they understand the difference between the noble profession and a profession, trade or business. Surely there has been a well recognized distinction. We can do no better than to reproduce what has been said and accepted by eminent personalities in these regards. 5. Surely there has been a well recognized distinction. We can do no better than to reproduce what has been said and accepted by eminent personalities in these regards. 5. The Scottish lawyer, Hugh Patterson McMillan, in his book "Ethics of Advocacy" had rightly said, "The practice of law is more than a mere trade or business, and those who engage in it are the guardians of ideals and traditions in which it is right that they should from time to time dedicate themselves anew." 6. As the distinguished American legal scholar and educator, Roscoe Pound observed, "Historically, there are three ideas involved in a profession-organization, learning and a spirit of public service. These are essential. The remaining idea that of gaining livelihood, is incidental." 7. We are also reminded of what Benjamin N. Cardozo said about this profession, "Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions". 8. The above would clearly bring out the duties of Advocates, who belong to this noble profession, but the question remains what are the burden or the conditions. In our opinion, the fountain head of this concept is to be found in statutory Rules framed by the Bar Council of India being Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, wherein in Part-VI in relation to Rules governing Advocates, the Preamble to Chapter-II, which relates to standards of professional conduct and etiquette, runs as follows:- "An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person, who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interest of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules hereafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall not be construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative though not specifically mentioned." 9. In our opinion, thus, seen this noble profession cannot be equated to, or treated like any trade or business. The rules hereafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall not be construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative though not specifically mentioned." 9. In our opinion, thus, seen this noble profession cannot be equated to, or treated like any trade or business. From this flows that activities like or similar to trade unionism are totally unacceptable in this noble profession, which the learned community of Advocates must appreciate. 10. Without further elaborating, we would like to refer to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court, which, the Advocates would accept in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is the law of the land. The judgment is in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Another, since reported in (2003)2 S.C.C. 45 : A.I.R. 2003 SC 739, from where we would only refer to what the Apex Court has laid down as the law of the land as follows:- "20. Thus, the law is already well settled. 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 also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before them and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Associations expressing want of confidence in judicial officers, it would amount to scandalising the courts to undermine its authority and thereby the advocates will have committed contempt of court. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Associations expressing want of confidence in judicial officers, it would amount to scandalising the courts to undermine its authority and thereby the advocates will have committed contempt of court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh case, (1999)1 SCC 37 that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer's duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of court/so Lawyers have also known, at least since Ramon Services case, (2001)1 SCC 118 that the advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call. 21. It must also be remembered that an advocate is an officer of the court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the court. They owe a duty to their clients. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. In the words of Mr. H.M. Seervai, a distinguished jurist:- "Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyze the working of the courts. "In my submission', he said that 'it is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Courts make it clear beyond doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. "In my submission', he said that 'it is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Courts make it clear beyond doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. For in no other way can the Supreme Court and the High Courts maintain the high position and exercise the great powers conferred by the Constitution and the law to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will." 22. It was expected that having known the well-settled law and having seen that repeated strikes and boycotts have shaken the confidence of the public in the legal profession and affected administration of justice, there would be self-regulation. The abovementioned interim order was passed in the hope that with self-restraint and self-regulation the lawyers would retrieve their profession from lost social respect. The hope has not fructified. Unfortunately strikes and boycott calls are becoming a frequent spectacle. Strikes, boycott calls and even unruly and unbecoming conduct are becoming a frequent spectacle. On the slightest pretence strikes and/or boycott calls are resorted to. The judicial system is being held to ransom. Administration of law and justice is threatened. The rule of law is undermined. 25. ......... Thus a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the Bar Councils are expected to rise to the occasion as they are responsible to uphold the dignity of courts and majesty of law and to prevent interference in administration of justice. In our view it is the duty of the Bar Councils to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct. This being their duty no Bar Council can even consider giving a call for strike or a call for boycott. It follows that the Bar Councils and even Bar Associations can never consider or take seriously any requisition calling for a meeting to consider a call for a strike or a call for boycott. Such requisitions should be consigned to the place where they belong viz. the waste-paper basket. In case any Association calls for a strike or a call for boycott the State Bar Council concerned and 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. In case any Association calls for a strike or a call for boycott the State Bar Council concerned and 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 for strike or boycott. 35. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on 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 armbands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore, in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before advocates decide to absent themselves from court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of 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 in addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him." (quotations from relevant paragraphs of the Reports as appearing in see with emphasis supplied). 11. We would wish to close this proceeding with merely quoting what Theodore Roosevelt said almost a century back, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favour". 12. We hope and cherish that every member of the legal fraternity would abide by rule of law as aforesaid. This proceeding is, accordingly, closed.