The Empty Courtroom: Who Pays the Price of Court Boycotts?

"A courtroom is not judged by how many cases it lists, but by how many citizens leave believing they were heard."

Every working day, thousands of people walk into courts across India with hope.

A woman seeks maintenance for her children.

An undertrial prisoner waits for a bail hearing.

A business owner hopes to protect years of hard work.

Parents wait to resolve a custody dispute.

Senior citizens seek protection of their property.

Victims seek justice.

The accused seek fairness.

Each of them has a different story.

Yet they all come to court for the same reason—they believe the justice system will hear them.

Now imagine they arrive at court only to learn that proceedings will not move because advocates have collectively decided to abstain from work.

The courtroom is open.

The Judge is present.

The court staff are present.

The police have produced the accused.

The files are ready.

But the hearing does not take place.

For the litigant, the reason matters far less than the result.

Another date.

Another journey.

Another day's wages lost.

Another month of waiting.

This article is not written to blame advocates, judges or any institution. It is written because this situation raises an important question:

When courts stop functioning, who really pays the price?

Courts Exist for the Citizen

We often think of courts as places where judges work and advocates argue.

That is true.

But it is only part of the truth.

Courts ultimately exist for citizens.

They exist so that disputes are resolved through law instead of power.

They exist so that a person with little influence can challenge a person—or even the State—with greater influence.

They exist because rights have meaning only when there is a place to enforce them.

That is why access to justice is not merely a convenience.

It is one of the foundations of a constitutional democracy.

The Reality of Court Boycotts

Anyone who has practised in Indian courts knows that court boycotts are not a new phenomenon.

Sometimes they are called because advocates face genuine grievances.

Those grievances may include inadequate infrastructure, poor sanitation, lack of chambers, security concerns, assaults on advocates, or dissatisfaction with administrative decisions.

These are not trivial issues.

A justice system cannot expect excellence while ignoring the welfare and dignity of the legal professionals who sustain it.

At the same time, another reality cannot be ignored.

Every day that court work is disrupted, it is the litigant who bears the immediate consequences.

The question therefore is not whether advocates should have grievances.

They do.

The question is whether the citizen should bear the cost of unresolved institutional problems.

What Does the Law Say?

The legal position in India is substantially settled.

In Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45, the Supreme Court held that advocates have no legal right to go on strike or boycott courts. The Court observed that once an advocate accepts a brief, there is a professional duty towards the client and towards the court. It also stated that courts should not routinely adjourn matters merely because lawyers are abstaining from work and that advocates who wish to appear should not be threatened or prevented from doing so.

The judgment does not deny that advocates may have legitimate grievances.

Instead, it draws a distinction between the right to raise those grievances and methods that interrupt the administration of justice.

That distinction remains important even today.

The Human Cost

When people speak about court boycotts, discussions often focus on institutions.

The Bar.

The Bench.

The Government.

The Bar Council.

But the least heard voice belongs to the litigant.

For many citizens, attending court itself requires a significant financial commitment.

Travel expenses.

Loss of daily wages.

Legal fees.

Meals.

Accommodation.

Childcare.

These are costs that people willingly bear because they believe their case will be heard.

When proceedings are postponed for reasons unrelated to their dispute, those costs become an avoidable loss.

The consequences are not merely financial.

An undertrial prisoner may remain in custody for longer.

A family may continue living without maintenance.

A business dispute may remain unresolved.

An elderly litigant may have to travel again despite failing health.

Justice delayed is not merely a legal phrase.

For many people, it is a lived experience.

A Difficult Position for Young Lawyers

There is another aspect of this issue that deserves attention.

What happens to a young advocate who wants to appear before the court despite a boycott?

The legal profession values independence.

Every advocate owes duties to the client, to the court and to the profession.

In an ideal system, every advocate should be free to exercise independent professional judgment without fear of intimidation or exclusion.

That principle deserves careful reflection.

Professional solidarity is important.

So is professional independence.

The challenge lies in preserving both.

Why This Matters Beyond the Courtroom

An efficient justice system is not important only for lawyers and judges.

It matters to everyone.

Businesses invest where contracts are enforced.

Citizens have confidence where rights are protected.

Communities remain peaceful where disputes can be resolved through law instead of force.

A nation that aspires to economic growth and constitutional governance cannot afford to treat the continuous functioning of its courts as a secondary concern.

Every unnecessary disruption affects not only pending cases but also public confidence in the Rule of Law.

Can There Be a Better Way?

The purpose of this article is not to suggest that advocates should silently accept every difficulty they face.

Far from it.

Many concerns raised by advocates deserve urgent attention.

Better court infrastructure.

Safe working environments.

Adequate sanitation.

Professional dignity.

Responsive court administration.

These are essential to a healthy justice system.

Perhaps the real question is not whether advocates should protest.

Perhaps the question is this:

Can we find ways to address legitimate grievances without requiring the citizen to wait outside an empty courtroom?

That question deserves a national conversation.

A Few Questions Worth Asking

Instead of ending with conclusions, perhaps we should begin with questions.

• If the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law, why do court boycotts continue?

• How can Bar Associations more effectively represent advocates while ensuring that litigants are not left without hearings?

• How can Governments respond more quickly to genuine infrastructure concerns?

• How can the judiciary, the Bar and the administration work together before disagreements reach a breaking point?

• How do other countries balance professional protest with uninterrupted court functioning?

• Most importantly, how do we ensure that the citizen remains at the centre of every decision concerning the justice system?

  
  

These are not questions for advocates alone.

They belong to judges.

Governments.

Bar Councils.

Court administrators.

Police.

Law students.

And every citizen who believes in the Rule of Law.

Where Do We Go from Here?

This article is not an appeal for silence in the face of genuine grievances.

Advocates deserve safe workplaces, dignified infrastructure and institutions that respond when legitimate concerns are raised. A justice system that neglects the welfare of its advocates ultimately weakens itself.

At the same time, the citizen who approaches a court should not become the unintended victim of institutional disagreements.

Perhaps the discussion should move away from choosing between the rights of advocates and the rights of litigants.

Perhaps the real challenge is finding ways to protect both.

The Bar, the Bench, the Government, the Bar Councils, court administrations and the police each have an important role in ensuring that courts remain places where justice is not only promised but delivered.

The questions raised in this article do not belong to any one institution.

They belong to all of us.

How do we improve court infrastructure without interrupting court work?

How do we protect the dignity and independence of advocates while safeguarding the citizen's access to justice?

How do we build a culture where disagreements are resolved through dialogue before they disrupt the administration of justice?

These questions deserve thoughtful discussion, not because they are easy, but because they matter.

A courtroom is more than a building.

It is where ordinary people place extraordinary trust in the Rule of Law.

Every day that a citizen walks into a courtroom, the justice system is presented with an opportunity to honor that trust.

That opportunity should never be taken lightly.

Be Bold Reflection

A healthy democracy is not one without disagreement. It is one where disagreement is resolved without making the citizen wait longer for justice.