Statement & Argument — Should legal professionals in India have the right to go on strike? Arguments: I. No; chronic strikes have already produced massive case backlogs and harm clients’ access to justice. II. Yes; if lawyers’ dignity, independence, or integrity is compromised, strike action is their only meaningful weapon.

Introduction / Context:
Justice delivery is an essential service. Strong arguments should weigh public interest (timely adjudication) against labor rights, with attention to proportionality and alternatives.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Large backlogs already strain the system; client interests are directly affected by lawyer cessations.
• Professional codes and court rulings in many jurisdictions discourage or bar strikes by advocates.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong: it points to measurable harm to litigants and the system’s core objective. Argument II is weak as framed: it asserts strike as the “only meaningful weapon,” ignoring internal institutional remedies (bar councils, courts, dialogue) and calibrated protest forms that do not paralyze courts.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Direct, outcome-focused reasoning—strong.II: Overstates necessity and lacks proportionality—weak.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong.