Not enough remedy

Judiciary is a critical branch of the state, and for its proper functioning and timely dispensation of justice, the bar (lawyers) and the bench (judges) work together. Lawyers are duty-bound to perform their responsibilities towards their clients as officers of the court.
Whenever lawyers sign a power of attorney on behalf of their clients, they enter into a legally enforceable contract. Considering this, strikes or boycott by lawyers is merely a breach of trust.
On their part, the lawyers take the plea that they are members of bar associations and are bound to follow their decisions. Now the question is: which one should be given preference; the rules of the bar association or their commitment to the litigants?
It can be easily observed in society that local bar associations call for strikes over petty issues, even non-issues, and hold the entire judicial system hostage.
A bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan had observed earlier this year (Jan 11) that the legal profession cannot be undermined by lawyers’ strikes for a lesser cause than to defend and protect the Constitution, and that the lawyers concerned should at least return the fee if a loss is caused to their clients on account of a strike.
But this is not enough remedy. The clients, who suffer due to their own lawyers, must be given heavy damages. The ‘accused’ who cannot get bail or whose trial is prolonged or delayed owing to lawyers’ strikes must be compensated, although the period during which he remained behind the bars or in some disease-ridden jail cannot be compensated with money.
The lawyers must let the judicial system run. They must remember that the litigants and the public are the sufferers because of their meaningless activism, which brings the whole judicial machinery to a screeching halt.
ADVOCATE SAIRA AHMAD
TOBA TEK SINGH