INTRODUCTION
In popular societies, the right to protest is a foundation of civil liberties. Yet, when the protestors are officers of the court, attorneys.
This right raises complex ethical and legal questions. Should attorneys be allowed to strike, swap courts, or engage in other forms of kick? Or should they be held to an advanced standard, with their professional scores trumping their civil liberties? This debate, especially applicable in authorities like India, has gained instigation amidst recent incidents of counsel strikes dismembering judicial processes. This blog seeks to explore the balance between the legal profession’s liabilities and its rights to dissent.
THE CONTEXT: WHY DO ATTORNEYS PROTEST?
Attorneys, like other citizens, have historically protested against political injustice, violence against lawyers, executive failures, or perceived contravention of judicial independence. In India, one of the most cited reasons is the demand for a new bench of the High Court, a better structure, or resistance to judicial transfers. In Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, for example, dragged-out boycotts have brought courts to a deadlock over putatively original grievances[1].
Still, the counteraccusations of similar demurrers are wide-reaching, petitioners are left in the lurch, judicial detainments worsen, and public faith in the legal system erodes.
THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN AN INDIGENOUS FRAMEWORK
The Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression under Composition 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully under Composition 19(1)(b)[2]. These rights extend to all citizens, including attorneys.
Still, these rights aren’t absolute and can be nicely confined under Composition 19(2) and 19(3) in the interests of sovereignty, public order, and morality[3]. But does this indigenous right extend to a right to strike, especially for professionals like attorneys? In T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that “there is no abecedarian right to strike” under the Constitution, even for government workers.[4] This decision has also been extended in spirit to include lawyers, given their vital part in the justice delivery system.
PROFESSIONAL DUTIES VS CIVIL LIBERTIES
Attorneys hold a unique position in society. As officers of the court, they aren’t simply private individuals but essential actors in the administration of justice. This binary identity complicates their engagement in demurrers. The Bar Council of India Rules, under Section II of Chapter II, easily state that an advocate shall not withdraw from court work without sufficient cause and without giving reasonable and sufficient notice to the customer.[5] Rule 11 prohibits any conduct that brings the profession into reproach[6]. The Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India categorically held that attorneys have no right to strike or give a call for a boycott.[7] While the court conceded the advocate’s right to express dissent, it made it clear that strikes, even for a just cause, are unethical and taboo if they obstruct court functioning.
ETHICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
From an ethical viewpoint, demurrers by attorneys produce an incongruity. Lawyers are expected to be guardians of the rule of law, yet by engaging in strikes, they compromise the very system they’re sworn to uphold. Petitioners suffer immensely when lawyers strike. Court sounds are suspended, bail pleas are delayed, and justice is denied by dereliction. In a nation where millions of cases are formally pending, indeed, a single day of boycott can beget irreparable damage[8]. Public policy also leans against allowing similar conduct. The bar isn’t just a disagreement resolution forum; it’s a public milieu. Allowing one of its crucial functionaries, the legal fraternity, to disrupt its performance for particular or political reasons is contrary to the larger public interest[9].
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Encyclopedically, the situation varies. In the United Kingdom, the Code of Conduct for Barristers authorises that they must not refuse to act for a customer on the grounds of particular expostulation to the nature of the case (the “hack rank” rule).[10] Strikes or boycotts that lead to non-representation could, thus, transgress these professional standards. In the United States, while the First Amendment offers robust protection to speech and kicks, professional conduct rules apply to courts and guests that can stamp out general civil liberties. For example, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys to diligently represent their clients, failing which corrective conduct can follow.[11] These systems honour the limited compass of the right to protest within the frame of legal ethics and customer scores.
BAR COUNCILS AND THEIR PART
Bar councils, as non-supervisory bodies, are anticipated to uphold the quality and ethical norms of the profession. Yet, in India, bar councils have frequently set themselves in a dilemma—caught between supporting attorneys’ collaborative interests and chastising errant conduct. The Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have sometimes passed judgments supporting strikes[12].
Still, they’re increasingly being called out for failing to penalise repeated and unlawful boycotts. The Law Commission of India, in its 266th Report, stressed that strikes by attorneys cannot be justified under any circumstance and recommended corrective action against those involved.[13]
POSSIBLE MIDDLE PATH EXPRESSION WITHOUT DISLOCATION
While an outright ban on kick may feel too extreme, a regulated framework for expression could offer a balanced result.
No dislocation Clause attorneys may protest or submit memoranda, but without dismembering the court’s functioning. Customer Protection Measures: Legal aid or alternate counsel should be arranged to ensure guests aren’t affected. Designated Days for Advocacy Events The bar could coordinate with the bar for events or demonstrations that don’t conflict with court hours. Use of Legal Remedies Lawyers should be encouraged to use Public Interest Action (PIL) and emblematic styles rather than strikes.
CONCLUSION: STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE
To answer the question: Should attorneys lose the right to protest?— The answer lies not in rescinding their civil liberties but in reconsidering the compass of admissible kick. While attorneys, as citizens, enjoy indigenous freedoms, their professional duties bear lesser restraint and responsibility.
A distinction must be made between peaceful expression and disruptive conduct. When the protest undermines court proceedings, harms clients, and tarnishes the rule of law, it becomes not just unprofessional but unconstitutional. In safeguarding justice, lawyers must be the last to abandon the process and the first to uphold its dignity—even when they dissent.
Author(s) Name: Palak Jha (IILM University, Greater Noida)
References:
[1] ‘Lawyers boycott courts again in Tamil Nadu’, The Hindu (Chennai, 4 January 2023). https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/lawyers-boycott-courts/article7644036.ece accessed 09 June 2025.
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a) and (b).
[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 19(2) and (3).
[4] T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003) 6 SCC 581.
[5] Bar Council of India, Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, Ch II, Part VI, Sec II
[6] Ibid, r 11.
[7] Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45.
[8] Department of Justice, Government of India, National Judicial Data Grid Statistics (2024)
[9] Law Commission of India, Report No 266: The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation of Legal Profession) (March 2017).
[10] Bar Standards Board, BSB Handbook, rC29 (‘cab rank rule’) (2023).
[11] American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.3 (Diligence).
[12] Bar Council of India warns lawyers over frequent strikes, LiveLaw (New Delhi, 18 July 2022).
[13] Law Commission of India, (n 09).