The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the lawyers’ strike and boycott of judicial work carried out by members of the Central Bar Association and Lucknow Bar Association between May 18 and May 26, 2026, was “unjustified and illegal.” The court has also issued show-cause notices to office-bearers of both associations and certain advocates, asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti on June 8, 2026.
Background of the Case
The matter arose in a public interest litigation concerning alleged encroachments near Chakbast Crossing in Lucknow and the events that followed efforts by civic authorities to remove those structures.
During earlier proceedings, reports were placed before the court indicating that members of the legal fraternity had abstained from judicial work for several days. The District Judge, Lucknow, also submitted reports, photographs, and video material relating to meetings of lawyers during the protest period.
The court noted that the reports suggested judicial work in Lucknow courts was affected between May 18 and May 26 due to the strike call allegedly given by the office-bearers of the two bar associations.
While considering the issue, the Bench referred extensively to previous judgments of the Supreme Court and an earlier Allahabad High Court order passed in August 2024 concerning lawyers’ strikes.
The court recalled that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that advocates have no right to go on strike or boycott court proceedings. The Bench also referred to directions previously issued by the Allahabad High Court stating that any strike or abstention from work by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh would be treated as an apparent act of criminal contempt.
The judges observed that these directions had already been circulated across the State through the Registrar General and district judges, making bar associations aware of the legal
The Bench expressed concern over the effect of the strike on litigants and court functioning.
According to the order, the boycott of court work allegedly caused inconvenience to parties appearing before courts, including witnesses and litigants who had travelled to Lucknow for hearings.
The court observed:
“Such conduct of the Advocates is not only unjustified but the same is illegal also.”
The Bench further noted that the right to protest cannot override the constitutional right of litigants to access justice and obtain timely adjudication of their cases.
The judges also referred to material placed before them indicating that one advocate was seen distributing plastic lathis during a gathering of lawyers and that certain speeches and social media posts were allegedly made during the protest period.
The court noted that the Central Bar Association had already taken disciplinary action against two advocates by expelling them from its primary membership for a period of five years.
Taking that development into account, the Bench decided not to immediately initiate criminal contempt proceedings.
Instead, show-cause notices were issued to the office-bearers of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow, the Lucknow Bar Association, and three advocates named in the order.
The court directed them to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated and why their conduct should not be referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action.
The concerned advocates have been directed to submit their explanations within two weeks, supported by affidavits and undertakings that they will abide by the law laid down by the Supreme Court and maintain proper professional conduct.
Holding that the strike and boycott of judicial work from May 18 to May 26, 2026, were illegal and unjustified, the Allahabad High Court issued show-cause notices to the concerned office-bearers and advocates regarding possible criminal contempt action and referral of alleged professional misconduct to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The matter has been directed to be listed on July 27, 2026, for further proceedings after obtaining appropriate orders for constitution of the Bench.
Case Details
Case Title: Anuradha Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home and Others
Case Number: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2026
Judge: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti
Decision Date: June 8, 2026
