How does the support of lawyer associations for strikes impact the balance between judicial independence and executive authority?

Lawyer associations play a significant role in the legal system, often acting as intermediaries between the judiciary, the executive, and the public. When these associations support strikes, especially in response to executive actions (such as notifications from the Lieutenant Governor), it raises important questions about judicial independence and the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive.

• Impact on Judicial Functioning: Strikes by lawyers can disrupt court proceedings, delay justice delivery, and affect the functioning of the judiciary. This can undermine public confidence in the judicial process and hinder access to justice for ordinary citizens.
• Judicial Independence: Collective action by lawyers in response to perceived executive overreach can be seen as a defense of judicial independence. It signals resistance to attempts by the executive to interfere in the functioning or autonomy of the courts.
• Pressure on the Executive: Support for strikes by prominent lawyer associations puts pressure on the executive to reconsider or withdraw actions that may be seen as encroaching upon judicial powers or the sanctity of the courts.
• Risks of Politicization: Frequent or politically motivated strikes can blur the line between legitimate defense of judicial independence and undue politicization of the legal profession, potentially harming the credibility of both the judiciary and the bar.
• Balance of Power: Such collective actions highlight the ongoing tension in the relationship between the judiciary and executive. While they may protect judicial autonomy, excessive confrontation or disruption can also weaken institutional respect and cooperation between the two organs.
• Legal and Ethical Considerations: The Supreme Court of India has held that lawyers' strikes are illegal and adversely affect the administration of justice. This raises ethical questions about the appropriateness of such actions, even in the face of executive interference.