No Deliberate Disobedience: MP High Court Drops 2624 Contempt Cases Against Individual Lawyers Over Strike Against New Case Disposal Scheme

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dropped 2624 contempt cases and 1938 show cause notices issued against advocates in suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against individual lawyers in March 2023, for non-appearance in courts to protest against a scheme rolled out for swift disposal of 25 pending cases every quarter in all districts in the state. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra found that there was ‘no deliberate disobedience’ on the part of the individual lawyers who abided by the direction issued by the State Bar Council instead of the court order that gave directions to the contrary. After reading the affidavits filed by the Presidents of the High Court Bar Association Jabalpur and High Court Advocates Bar Association Jabalpur, the court observed as below:

“…Reading of the affidavit does not indicate any deliberate disobedience. It would indicate the fickleness in the mind of the advocates with regard to the compliance of the court order vis-à-vis the direction issued by the Bar Council. Since the advocates have now realized the futility in complying with the direction of the State Bar Council vis-à-vis a judicial order, we do not find that there is any deliberate disobedience of the court order dated 24.03.2023.”

The court also opined that those acts such as that of the lawyers abstaining from appearing in courts as a form of protest is ‘fatal’. According to the court, the bar and bench are ‘partners in the dispensation of justice’, therefore, any act of protest by one institution against the other will be detrimental to the institution.

“…The advocates being officers of the court are duty bound to protect the dignity and decorum of the court. If a judicial order is disobeyed by an advocate, it affects the faith and trust between the Bar and the Bench. Such acts of disobedience affect the very fabric of the institution… Any act which damages the institution can never be pardoned”, the court explained.

In the affidavits, both Association Presidents tendered an unconditional apology and gave a detailed explanation of the dilemma that occurred to the association members.

It was submitted that although they knew about the significance of obeying the court orders dated 24^th March and 27^th March, they were in a state of confusion, also being beneficiaries of certain welfare schemes run by the State Bar Council.

It was argued that if the lawyers were to outrightly disobey the State Bar Council’s directions, they would run the risk of losing such benefits, which would pose a threat to their livelihoods. 

‘25 Debt Scheme’, against which the protest took place, was introduced by the High Court in October 2021 and was meant to tackle the issue of old cases pending in the District Courts for a long time without being taken up regularly.

On 10^th October, the Supreme Court had directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reconsider contempt notices issued against advocates, who were not bar council office bearers, for not appearing in courts on the strike day.

Recently, the Supreme Court also deprecated the lawyers’ strike at Rajasthan High Court Jaipur bench; and issued notice to bar association.

Court’s Further Observations

On the aspect of 176 criminal contempt proceedings pending against the Chairman of the State Bar Council, Members of the State Bar Council, the President and the office bearers of the Associations, the court felt it apt to defer the same for the time being.

Meanwhile, Prem Singh Bhadoriya, Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council withdrew the counter affidavit filed by him after the bench sitting at Jabalpur allowed the recall of the order accepting the said affidavit dated 01.11.2023. Mr Bhadoriya also tendered an apology and added that he was under the bona fide belief that calling for the strike in those circumstances was justified.

The deponents, Sanjay Verma and Anil Khare, i.e., the Presidents of the above-mentioned Associations had expressed their willingness in their respective affidavits to bear the entire responsibility for flouting the court orders dated 24.03.2023 and 27.03.2023.

Consideration of this aspect was also deferred by the court. While doing so, the court also acknowledged the onerous attempt made by the deponents to shield the individual lawyers from the contempt proceedings.

“…They have put their position at a risk while filing such affidavits. In the affidavit they have stated that they are willing to face the contempt proceedings in case the Court would order so. There is every possibility of this Court taking a view against their interest. Notwithstanding the same they have put the interest of the individual lawyers ahead of the respective positions they hold…”, the court further added.

The court has also clarified that it should be construed as if no contempt case has been registered against any of the individual lawyers, considering the peculiar circumstances surrounding the issue.

“…We wish to explain this by stating that in a given case where an application is made for any position which contains a column as to whether any court case etc. has been registered against the advocate, the concerned advocate would be entitled to state “No”….”, the court further mentioned in the order.

The bench has also directed the registry to retain a copy of the order in each case file and dispose of the contempt proceedings. The 176 criminal contempt proceedings against the office bearers will be heard after four weeks from the date of the present order.

Case Title: In Reference (Suo Moto) v. The Chairman and Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 7295 of 2023

Click Here To Read/ Download Order