Varaprasad Sastry
Wednesday, 28 January 2026
The Rajasthan High Court has issued a stern condemnation of a recent strike by lawyers protesting the court's decision to require work on two Saturdays each month. This boycott, which has disrupted court proceedings, raises serious concerns about the legal responsibilities of advocates and the public's right to access justice.
This ruling emerges amidst ongoing challenges within India's legal community, including the need to maintain court efficiency and ensure timely justice delivery. The decision to mandate Saturday work aims to address the persistent backlog in the judiciary.
Justice A.K. Jain, overseeing the case, underscored the necessity of upholding judicial processes, stating, “The right to strike is not absolute, especially when it infringes upon the rights of litigants.” His remarks highlight the judiciary's growing frustration with frequent strikes that impede court operations.
While lawyers contend that the mandate disrupts their work-life balance and infringes on their rights, the Court emphasized that the strike not only stalls court proceedings but also adversely affects numerous litigants awaiting justice. The bench reiterated that the right to access justice is a fundamental component of Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty.
This ruling may set a precedent for addressing similar disputes in the future. Lawyers who persist in strikes that disrupt legal proceedings could face legal repercussions. It is crucial for practitioners and legal bodies to acknowledge that their responsibilities extend beyond personal grievances, significantly impacting the broader legal ecosystem.
Looking ahead, it is vital for the Bar Council and legal representatives to engage in constructive dialogue with the judiciary. A collaborative approach could foster reforms that respect lawyers' rights while ensuring the judiciary operates efficiently. Balancing advocacy with duty to the court is essential to preserving the integrity of the legal system.
What You Need to Know
Rajasthan HC condemns lawyers' strike against mandatory Saturday work, citing disruption of court proceedings and infringement on litigants' rights.
Affects lawyers, litigants, and the judiciary, particularly those dependent on timely resolution of cases and efficient court operations.
Establishes precedent limiting lawyers' right to strike when it obstructs access to justice, reinforcing Article 21's guarantee.
Engage in dialogue with the judiciary and Bar Council to balance advocacy with duty to the court, avoiding disruptive strikes.
Rajasthan HC denounces lawyers' strike, citing Article 21 violations and impacts on justice access.
Join 50,000+ legal professionals
Sign in to join the conversation
Loading comments...
India's Supreme Court scrutinizes amendments to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, emphasizing the need for clarity on personal data definitions.
Court warns states against cash schemes before polls, citing economic risks.
Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court's fixed pay order for TET teachers, impacting educational employment policies.
India's trade landscape shifts as Supreme Court nullifies U.S. tariffs, urging legal and diplomatic action.
