Work was paralysed at the Delhi High Court Monday after lawyers joined a strike to protest against police action against colleagues in Jaipur and registration of a first information report (FIR) against 20 others in Chandigarh earlier this month.
"Work in all courts including high courts will remain paralysed on March 11, as lawyers throughout the country have decided to observe strike against the unwarranted lathi-charge by police on lawyers in Chandigarh and Jaipur who were protesting peacefully in support of their demands," said Rajiv Khosla, spokesperson of the Bar Council of Delhi.
The strike is being observed in the capital's six district courts. In the high court, only proxy counsels appeared before the court to get next hearing dates in their cases.
In Ahmedabad, the lawyers joined the strike and boycotted the courts.
Police used batons and lobbed teargas shells against lawyers in Jaipur while they were protesting March 6 outside the Rajasthan assembly demanding better pay and cheaper homes. Nearly 30 lawyers were injured in the incident.
In Chandigarh, an FIR was registered against former additional advocate general of Punjab Rupinder Singh Khosla and 19 other high court lawyers for thrashing a police constable and ransacking a security room inside the court premises March 4.
"Lawyers across the country are aggrieved by the police action. We urge the government to take immediate action against the erring police officials. The police force should be sensitised to prevent them from using force against peaceful protesters in future," Khosla added.
Lawyers today boycotted judicial work at the Allahabad High Court, the district court here and the bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Allahabad has the dubious distinction of having maximum number of pending cases in the country.
Traffic was affected on the roads adjoining judicial bodies in the city as advocates staged demonstrations condemning the incidents and raised slogans demanding action against the guilty policemen.
The agitation caused consternation among litigants coming from remote areas as well as office-goers who were unable to reach their place of work in time due to demonstrations.
Heavy deployment of police was in place in the judicial premises where advocates were demonstrating though no incident of violence was reported from any part of the city.