The Ahmedabad court shutdown has disrupted access to several judicial facilities as lawyers remain divided over the Bhada Vidheyak, or Rent Bill, and demand a written assurance from the government before accepting any fresh decision.
According to a report by Divya Bhaskar, the Ahmedabad City Civil and Sessions Court, Small Causes Court and Family Court were closed to the public, while litigants were not being allowed to enter. The Ahmedabad Metro Court was also reported to have been closed during the protest.
The disruption followed a meeting between representatives of the government and lawyers. The meeting resulted in a decision, but disagreement emerged within the legal community over whether that decision adequately addressed concerns about the proposed legislation. One group is supporting the protest, while another group has continued with court proceedings, according to the report.
Vinod Dixit, the working president of the Bar Association, alleged that earlier office-bearers had taken a unilateral decision without consulting all members. He said that no new decision would be accepted until the government provided a written assurance.
The disagreement has therefore moved beyond an internal association dispute and affected the functioning of courts used by residents for civil, family, small-cause and other legal matters. With access restricted, litigants and other court users have been unable to enter the affected premises during the protest. The supplied report does not provide details of the number of cases, hearings or litigants affected.
Lawyers gathered on the court premises as part of the protest. A canopy and chairs were arranged outside the court, where members assembled. The report also said that Generation Z lawyers were included in the strike action.
The developments highlight how decisions taken by representative legal bodies can have immediate consequences for the public operation of courts. Court buildings are not only workplaces for legal professionals; they are also essential public institutions where residents seek remedies, attend hearings and pursue disputes involving property, family and other civil matters. In this instance, the reported closure has limited public access while the disagreement over the government’s response remains unresolved.
The Bhada Vidheyak has become the central issue in the dispute. The report does not set out the full provisions of the proposed legislation or the specific changes sought by the protesting lawyers. It also does not state whether the government has issued the written assurance demanded by the Bar Association.
The immediate position remains divided: one group of lawyers is backing the protest, while another is continuing court-related work. The next step will depend on the government’s written response and on whether the Bar Association reaches a fresh decision after consulting its members.
