News Date :
Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday issued show cause notice to the chairman of the State Bar Council chairman and every elected member of the State Bar Council seeking explanation why criminal contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for compelling lawyers to abstain from judicial work.
Single-judge Justice Atul Sreedharan noted that the strike called by the the chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council was in brazen defiance of the order passed by the High Court on March 24 in a suo motu case initiated by the Court in wake of the strike.
It, therefore, directed the registry of the Court to register a criminal contempt of court case against them.
“The action on the part of the Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council and its elected Members amounts to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c)(ii) or (iii). Therefore, the Registry is directed to register a contempt case (criminal) against the Chairman of the State Bar Council and every elected member of the State Bar Council and issue notice to them as to why this Court ought not to prosecute them for criminal contempt of court on account of them having compelled the lawyers to abstain from judicial work which is interfering and obstructing the administration of justice in the State,” the Court said on its Monday order.
Lawyers in the State have been striking against a scheme envisaged by the administration of the High Court by which district courts are required to identify and dispose of the 25 oldest cases in each court within three months. It is felt that the move would put undue pressure on lawyers and judges, and that disposing of 25 cases in such a short span of time would be impossible.
To protest against the policy, the chairman of the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh had issued a communication asking the entire lawyer community to abstain from court work. He had also addressed a letter to Chief Justice Ravi Malimath stating that unless the High Court revoked the policy by March 22, the lawyers would begin striking from March 23.
When the lawyers began the strike, a division bench of the Court had initiated a suo motu case on March 24 and passed an order cautioning lawyers that contempt of court action would be taken against the striking lawyers if the direction wasn’t followed.
However, the lawyers continued to abstain from work.
In the order passed yesterday, the single-judge noted that the issue against which the Bar Council has called for the strike was dealt with in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the March 24 order.
Justice Sreedharan also noted that the Chief Justice on his part had called for the suggestion from the members of the Bar but instead, the chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council unnecessarily precipitated the matter by declaring strike.
“The State Bar Council, instead of resolving the issue in consultation with the Chief Justice and knowing fully well that has the option to challenge on the judicial side, the administrative order passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, chose the path of confrontation without justifiable cause and attempted to bring the functioning of the entire High Court and the District Judiciary to a standstill,” the Court said.
The Court also sympathised with the junior bar stating,
“The plight of the Bar, specially the junior bar is well known and they find themselves in a “between the devil and the deep sea” situation are helplessness to go against the illegal diktat of the State Bar Council and are compelled to abstain from work despite their unwillingness, and are equal victims of the capricious action of the State Bar Council as the litigants are.”
The Court observed that ongoing strike was in defiance of the order passed by the Chief Justice Ravi Malimath on March 24 and was also against the law established by Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal v. Union of India in which it was held that lawyers do not have the right to resort to strikes.
Hence, it directed the registry to register a criminal contempt of court case against the chairman and elected members of the State Bar Council.
Any attempt by any person in restraining a counsel to appear before the Court shall also render them liable to be tried for an offence under Section 341 (wrongful restraint) of Indian Penal Code, the Court added.
Pertinently, many judges at both Jabalpur and Gwalior bench of the High Court issued contempt notices and show cause notices to around 500 advocates for abstaining from work.
One such order by a Division Bench of High Court said, advocates are on strike purportedly in the wake of Adhisuchna No.08/2023 of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh issued by the Working Secretary Geeta Shukla calling upon the Association of Advocates/Advocates to abstain from work on 27.03.2023.”
In light of same, the Bench issued contempt notice to the contemnor lawyers.
