Right to strike is a Fundamental Right as provided under Article 19(1)(c) of
the Indian Constitution. Under the umbrella of this Freedom Advocates also
go on to strike. This right of strike of Advocates is always in question and
debated hotly. An advocate is considered as the person who helps people to
achieve justice. And this right of advocate to go on strike usually strive
general public from getting Justice. It is usually said that Bar Association
have no right to strike and boycott courts. Judiciary is the third pillar of
Democracy. And this right of strike of advocates many a times have led to
conflict between Bar and the Bench. There have been many judgements
regarding this matter and for this research paper I am going to deal with one
of the landmark judgements which is “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of
India1
”. And in between all these conflicts only and only the Justice seekers
are really suffering which we can also find in this particular case. Though
many attempts from time to time have been made to resolve this problem but
then also it exists till date. Both the Bar and the bench share a common duty
towards each other as if Bar have the duty to be courteous so as it is the duty
of the court to be courteous and listen to the problems of its members
