Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a suo motu Public Interest Litigation concerning a strike called by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, a Division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait,* CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., accepted the apology and the responsibility assumed by the State Bar Council for the strike and discharge the contemnors from the contempt proceedings.
In the instant matter, the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh issued a communication on 20-03-2023, calling on lawyers in the State to abstain from judicial work starting 23-03-2023, in order to protest against the High Court’s scheme mandating the disposal of 25 oldest cases every quarter. Despite communication between the Bar Council, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the Bar Council of India, the strike call was not withdrawn.
The Court noted that strikes by lawyers contravene Harish Uppal v. Union of India, , where the Supreme Court categorically held that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts. The Court also emphasised that such strikes harm litigants and undermine the Rule of Law. The Court vide order dated 24-03-2023, directed the lawyers across the State to resume court work immediately, any lawyer refusing to comply or preventing others from attending court would face contempt proceedings and potential disbarment and instructed the judicial officers to report non-compliance by lawyers.
The Chairman of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh filed an affidavit on behalf of all the contemnors, expressing their commitment to the rule of law and the dignity and decorum of the Court and sought an unconditional apology for their actions. The State Bar Council mentioned that the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh takes responsibility for the strike organized by the Bar, and thus, requested the withdrawal of the contempt proceedings against the respondents and office bearers of all Bar Associations in Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court, vide its order dated 18-11-2024, permitted the contemnors to withdraw their Special Leave Petition (SLP).
The Court noted that the Supreme Court took the affidavit on record and acknowledged the unconditional apology offered by the contemnors. In view of the apology and the submission by the Bar Council, the Court decided to discharge the contemnors from the contempt proceedings. The Court disposed of the writ petition, accordingly, withdrawn the contempt proceedings.
[In reference v. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P., Writ Petition No. 7295 of 2023, Decided on 21-11-2024]
*Judgment by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Radhe Lal Gupta – Chairman, Shri R.K. Singh Saini – Vice Chairman, Shri Shivendra Upadhyay, Shri Prem Singh Bhadoria, Shri Rajesh Shukla, Shri Jeetendra Sharma, Shri Rajesh Pandey and Shri Jai Prakash Mishra, Counsel for the State Bar Council
Shri Ramakant Awasthi and Shri Satyam Agrawal, Counsel for the Respondents
Shri Sanjay Agrawal Senior Advocate with Shri Praveen Dubey, Counsel for the Respondent No. 5
Shri Saket Sen, Counsel for the respondent No. 27
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Counsel for the respondent No. 10
Shri Sanjay Verma, Counsel for the respondent
Shri Udayan Tiwari, Counsel for the respondent 237
The post appeared first on .