Allahabad High Court Reiterates Ban on Lawyers’ Strikes, Seeks Explanations from Bar Office-Bearers

The Allahabad High Court has strongly disapproved of the recent strike by lawyers in Lucknow, holding that the boycott of court proceedings between May 18 and May 26, 2026, was contrary to established law and adversely affected the administration of justice.

The observations came during the hearing of a public interest litigation relating to the removal of alleged encroachments near Chakbast Crossing in Lucknow. While examining the matter, the Court was informed that a demolition exercise undertaken by civic authorities could not be completed due to resistance allegedly faced from members of the legal fraternity. Authorities reported that only a fraction of the identified encroachments could be removed because of disruptions during the drive.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti examined materials placed on record, including reports submitted by the District Judge, Lucknow, along with visual evidence relating to meetings and activities connected with the strike.

The Court observed that the abstention from judicial work resulted in considerable inconvenience to litigants and affected the functioning of courts. Particular concern was expressed for witnesses and litigants who had travelled to attend proceedings but were unable to have their matters taken up because of the boycott.

Reiterating the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions, the Bench noted that advocates do not possess a legal right to suspend court work through strikes or boycotts. The Court emphasized that such actions undermine the justice delivery system and interfere with the constitutional objective of ensuring timely access to justice.

During the proceedings, allegations regarding the conduct of certain advocates were also brought to the Court's notice. Reference was made to material suggesting provocative speeches, objectionable social media activity, and conduct allegedly intended to obstruct public authorities. The Court, however, noted that disciplinary measures had already been initiated by the concerned bar association against some of the individuals involved.

Taking a cautious approach, the Bench stopped short of immediately initiating contempt proceedings. Instead, notices were issued to office-bearers of the concerned bar associations as well as certain advocates, calling upon them to explain their conduct and show cause why contempt action should not be taken against them.

The Court further directed the concerned individuals to file affidavits undertaking that they would adhere to judicial directions prohibiting strikes and maintain professional standards expected of members of the legal profession.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on July 27, 2026. The Court is expected to examine the responses filed by the advocates and bar representatives before deciding whether any further action is warranted.

Case: Anuradha Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & OthersBench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev BhartiOrder Date: June 8, 2026