Calcutta High Court urges lawyers to withdraw strikes after attacks on advocates, citing hardship to litigants and the need for court security.
The Calcutta High Court has urged Bar Associations to end strikes at two subordinate courts following reported attacks on advocates, emphasising that continued disruption of judicial proceedings places ordinary litigants at a serious disadvantage.
Calcutta High Court Expresses Concern Over Lawyers’ Strikes
The Calcutta High Court has expressed concern over lawyers abstaining from work at two subordinate courts in West Bengal following reported incidents of violence against advocates. The Court has called for efforts to persuade the concerned Bar Associations to withdraw their strikes, observing that continued disruption would adversely affect litigants awaiting justice.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated after advocate Sayan Banerjee was allegedly attacked within the Baruipur court premises.
The incident reportedly occurred after Banerjee appeared in a criminal proceeding. Unknown persons allegedly threw eggs at him and raised slogans of “Sayan Banerjee go back”.
The incident prompted the High Court to examine concerns over the safety of advocates within court premises and the measures required to prevent similar occurrences.
Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Advocate’s Alleged Attack
The High Court initiated proceedings on its own motion after the incident was brought to its attention. It had earlier directed the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, to submit a report concerning the alleged attack.
Following the receipt of the police report, the matter was registered as a suo motu PIL. Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee was appointed as amicus curiae, a legal professional who assists the Court in examining issues of public importance.
During the hearing on October 7, 2026, the Bench was informed that further untoward incidents had allegedly taken place at the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Kolkata and at the Chandannagar Court in Hooghly district.
Advocate Subhankar Nag brought these developments to the Court’s attention and informed it that lawyers at the two court complexes had commenced strikes in protest.
The Bench expressed concern over the developments, recognising that reports of attacks on advocates raise serious questions about security within judicial institutions.
Bar Council Member Asked to Persuade Associations to End Strikes
During the proceedings, the Court requested Ajay Chaubey, an elected member of the West Bengal Bar Council who was present in Court, to approach the office-bearers of the concerned Bar Associations.
The objective was to persuade them to call off the strikes and restore the regular functioning of the courts.
The Bench observed that continued strikes would be counterproductive because litigants would lose opportunities to have their cases heard and decided on their scheduled dates. Repeated adjournments, it noted, could cause grave hardship to those seeking judicial remedies.
Chaubey assured the Court that he would approach the concerned Bar Associations with other Bar Council members and report the developments to the Bench.
The Court’s observations highlight the difficult balance between advocates’ concerns about professional safety and the public’s need for uninterrupted access to justice.
Court Directs Preservation of CCTV Footage
Apart from addressing the strikes, the High Court also took steps to preserve evidence relating to the alleged attack on Banerjee.
The Bench directed that the relevant CCTV footage from the Baruipur court premises be preserved. It noted that the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur Police District, indicated that an unidentified person could be seen throwing an object in the footage.
Preserving the recordings may assist the authorities in examining the incident and establishing the sequence of events. The direction also underscores the importance of securing potential evidence promptly when an alleged offence occurs within court premises.
The State’s Additional Advocates General informed the Court that they would communicate with the concerned authorities regarding the need to strengthen security at courts to prevent further untoward incidents.
The Court issued notices to the proposed respondents in the PIL, with the matter made returnable on December 11, 2026. It also directed that the case be listed on October 12 in the Urgent Admissions Category, specifically to ascertain whether the strikes at the two courts had been withdrawn.
Lawyers’ Safety and Litigants’ Right to Justice
The proceedings bring two important concerns into focus: the safety of advocates and the uninterrupted administration of justice.
Advocates must be able to represent their clients without fear of intimidation or physical attacks. At the same time, court boycotts and prolonged abstention from work can delay hearings, increase litigation costs and place additional burdens on parties who may already be waiting for a resolution.
The High Court’s intervention seeks to address both concerns by calling for the withdrawal of strikes while asking the State to strengthen security arrangements.
For further updates on judicial developments, readers can visit The Legal Observer’s national news section and its broader legal news coverage.
The case remains significant for the legal community because it places court security, professional protection and access to justice before the judiciary. The effectiveness of the steps taken will depend on the authorities’ response, the preservation of evidence and the restoration of normal court functioning.
For more legal developments and discussions, readers may also visit The Legal Observer’s YouTube
