"Lawyers' strikes and court boycotts undermine access to justice." Examine, and suggest institutional ways to address advocates' grievances, including their safety.

In November 2026 the Karnataka High Court started suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against unidentified advocates. During a State-wide boycott called over murders of advocates, they barged into the Chief Justice's court and forced other lawyers out [1]. Boycotts do deny justice to litigants. But they will keep happening until the causes behind them are dealt with through proper institutions.

How strikes and boycotts undermine access to justice

• Litigants lose representation: hearings are adjourned. Undertrials, bail applicants and poor litigants suffer the most, because their liberty or livelihood depends on the next date.
• Pendency grows: a State-wide boycott stops court work in a system that is already overburdened [1].
• Colleagues are obstructed: forcing out lawyers who chose to appear goes beyond protest. It obstructs the administration of justice, which is criminal contempt under Sec. 2(c) of the 1971 Act [2].
• Settled law: in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court held that advocates have no right to strike, not even a token one, and that courts should proceed despite a boycott [3].

Why advocates still strike

• Real grievances: attacks on lawyers and weak official responses leave them few ways to apply pressure [1].
• Contempt is a weak deterrent: the penalty cap is 6 months or ₹2,000, and an apology can end the case [2]. It punishes the disruption but does not deal with the cause.

Institutional remedies

• Safety: an Advocates' Protection law, special investigation of attacks, police help-desks, CCTV and access control in court complexes.
• Grievance redressal committees at High Court and district level, with Bar and State representatives, to settle disputes before a boycott is called.
• Professional discipline: High Courts should frame rules under Sec. 34 of the Advocates Act and Bar Councils should act on misconduct, as Harish Uppal directed [3].
• Fair contempt process: let the accused ask for trial before a different judge under Sec. 14(2) [2]. The Law Commission chose to keep criminal contempt [4], so the focus should be on using these tools fairly.

Strikes harm the litigant, whom both Bench and Bar exist to serve. Lawyer safety laws, grievance forums and fair discipline together can protect advocates without stopping the courts. That would honour the Article 39A promise of equal justice and SDG 16 on access to justice.