DEEPAK KLUMAR TAILOR S/O SH. MALIRAM TAILOR, v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMA/1/2026 · 2026-03-07
Anil Kumar Upman
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 902 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 902 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:9843] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1/2026 In S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025 Deepak Kumar Tailor S/o Sh. Maliram Tailor, aged about 47 years, Resident of 2-D-127, Lalita Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Ra- jasthan).
4. S.H.O. Police Station Kalwar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order 07/03/2026
1. In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr.” reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of Courts. Calls given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot require the Court to adjourn the matters. In the case of “Krishnakant Tamrakar versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2018) 17 SCC 27, it has been held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same tantamount to contempt. The
[2026:RJ-JP:9843] (2 of 2) [CRLMA-1/2026] Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the office bearers are liable to be removed from the office for passing resolution for strike. In view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.
2. The instant criminal misc. application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred for restoration of S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2025 on account of non-compliance of the peremptory
order dated 28.10.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. Having considered the grounds mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed and the S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.465/2025 is ordered to be restored to its original number.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /32