ARE STRIKES BY ADVOCATES JUSTIFIED?

We keep hearing about strikes by advocates in courts, here and there, everywhere. So today is a day when Delhi advocates from District Courts are going on strike against the recommendation of bringing in rules to fine the advocates who abstain from their duties/go on strikes. How ironic? And then they talk about right of speech and freedom. It is interesting when legal professionals want several special treatments, because they are advocates and when they are to be governed, they resort to this. If one looks at the causes of strikes, most of them would be without logic and/or baseless reasons, as they say.

One must keep in mind that legal services are catering to public at large and one strike derails everything. It is not a shop per say or other services where one day lost and the business can be concluded the next day. Here we are talking about courts, wherein one day lost means adjournment by weeks and months. My feeling is that most of the strikes are simply decided by the office bearers and then it goes further and as the crowd mentality goes, half of people stay away and at the end, it is only the client which suffers, nobody else, most of the times. Yes, some advocates are also at loss, but then they do not want to be in an unpleasant situation and so abstain, which works out fine for the ones causing it, as their purpose is solved, when the majority of advocates stay away from courts.

In each of the courts there are associations. And I wonder if these associations do no work for simple causes, then what are they there for. These strikes give a bad name to once a very noble profession and strikes by advocates, especially in Delhi, happens at the drop of a hat and is not at all good for the image of the advocates.

Even the bar councils have become a place for political ticking, where elections are fought with much fanfare, in real style - door to door campaigning, posters, stickers, groups et al - in a democratic setup. But after that? .......

I, individually, am completely against the strikes by advocates. Wondering how are they different from others creating chaos, because ultimately they harm the general public, who is at the receiving end, like always, from strikes.

Why don't advocates chose to wear white arm bands and attend courts in protest for a change? Why don't they remove the coats and with black arm bands attend courts and protest in silence? How does it help the clients if the wheel of justice is stopped from moving by the people who are supposed to keep it moving.