We examine four critical issues that offer an unflattering portrait of advocate behaviour. First, lawyers often engage in strikes over petty grievances. Second, advocates systematically seem to abuse adjournments while exploiting “exceptional case” clauses to monetize delays. Third, a cosy judge-lawyer nexus resists meaningful reform. Fourth, while the Advocates Amendment Bill of 2025 had proposed to ban strikes, it was withdrawn on resistance from lawyers, so we are back to square one.

Also Read: The subordinate judiciary is an economic pillar India must fix

In the light of good practices elsewhere, such as South Africa’s strict adjournment caps and Singapore’s fixed scheduling, we propose balanced reforms, such as a limit of three adjournments, professional accountability measures and timely enforcement mechanisms to restore judicial discipline while preserving legitimate professional autonomy.

Strikes over silly grievances: Recent events expose how many advocates have abandoned professional ethics to serve their egos. The Uttar Pradesh (UP) boycott in February left thousands stranded. Similarly, Jaipur lawyers broke their April 2023 undertaking at the Supreme Court by striking again over administrative issues. These incidents reflect a troubling pattern.

In August 2023, advocates in Karnataka boycotted courts for three days. The reason was shocking. A sessions judge had refused a fourth consecutive adjournment. The judge’s insistence on proceeding with arguments was deemed enough for a collective boycott. Even more egregious are strikes triggered by FIRs filed against advocates. In October 2022, after an advocate was alleged to have threatened a UP magistrate, the entire bar association called a boycott.

Also Read: India’s judicial rebirth: Let’s fix how we select and remove judges

These frivolous strikes directly violate the Supreme Court’s directive in the Harish Uppal case of 2003. That ruling held boycotts permissible only in the rarest of rare circumstances involving judicial dignity. Instead, strikes have become routine responses to everything from denied adjournments to parking disputes.

The adjournment racket: The link between strikes and endless adjournments reveals how advocates have transformed delay tactics into profit strategies. Consumer commissions routinely witness lawyers seeking postponements. This professional misconduct nullifies the Consumer Protection Act’s mandate for case resolution within 90-150 days. Over two-thirds of all consumer cases have exceeded that limit,  with lawyers seen to have manipulated exceptional circumstances clauses. 

An apparent judge-lawyer nexus perpetuates delays, with advocates resisting adjournment caps. If reforms are implemented, it would reduce the discretion of judges, which many lawyers aspire to become. An agitation at Delhi’s high court over judicial transfers in February 2023 exposed this uncomfortable reality. 

Also Read: Call of justice: India should reform its process for the removal of judges

Restore professional purpose: A Supreme Court ruling of 1 March 2024 complicates the accountability debate. The court held that advocates do not meet the definition of ‘service providers’ under the Consumer Protection Act. This immunizes lawyers from consumer litigation for deficient service, marking a significant departure from earlier high court interpretations. Moreover, this could open the door for exemptions for other service professions like healthcare.

Learn from models that work: South Africa’s Constitutional Court operates under strict adjournment caps with penalty provisions, ensuring accountability. Cases cannot exceed three postponements, except for genuine emergencies. Moreover, lawyers face professional sanctions for frivolous delay tactics. This model has restored public confidence without compromising due process. 

Singapore’s state courts operate on fixed schedules, with no scope for routine adjournments. Cases receive specific time slots and lawyers must be prepared; this system achieves 90% adherence. A key challenge lies in distinguishing between frivolous strikes and legitimate protests against systemic issues. Thailand’s model offers lessons: internal mediation mechanisms balance discipline with professional freedom.

Also Read: Tribunal reforms hold the key to efficient dispute resolution in India

We need a blueprint for balanced reforms: The path forward requires immediate implementation of proven international practices adapted to Indian conditions. Consumer commissions must abandon their ‘as far as possible’ approach and implement a firm limit of three adjournments. This alone could reduce consumer case pendency by 15%.

We should set up district-level redressal committees to look into the grievances of advocates. These panels should have real enforcement teeth—in line with the recommendations that were made in the wake of the Harish Uppal matter. Lawyers participating in strikes over trivial issues should face consequences ranging from warnings to temporary practice suspension.

Timeline enforcement mechanisms must include automatic case transfers to higher benches should delays result from lawyer tactics. In general, the legal profession must rediscover its basic purpose of serving justice. India’s economic aspirations depend on efficient dispute resolution. This cannot remain hostage to advocate whims. Reforms must be done before public faith in judicial institutions weakens any further.

The author is the secretary general of CUTS International.