[Lawyers' Strike] Madhya Pradesh High Court Restrains Ten Office Bearers Of Seoni Bar Association From Appearing In Any Courts For One Month
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has barred ten advocates belonging to the Seoni Bar Association from appearing in any courts for one month, pursuant to a submission made by the counsel appearing for the State Bar Council regarding the recent lawyers strike called by them.“In view of the submission made, the aforesaid advocates shall not be permitted to appear in any court for a period of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has barred ten advocates belonging to the Seoni Bar Association from appearing in any courts for one month, pursuant to a submission made by the counsel appearing for the State Bar Council regarding the recent lawyers strike called by them.
“In view of the submission made, the aforesaid advocates shall not be permitted to appear in any court for a period of one month w.e.f. 21.03.2024”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed after accepting the submission made by the Bar Council's Counsel, Satyam Agrawal.
The Division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra, taking into account the directives issued by a division bench of the High Court in Praveen Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2018), also held that the ten lawyers from Seoni District Bar Association won't be eligible to contest Bar Council or Bar Association Elections for the next three years.
The ten advocates who have been subjected to disciplinary action are the current office bearers of the Seoni District Bar Association, including its President Ravi Kumar Golhani and Secretary Ritesh Ahuja. Other office bearers who have been barred from appearing in courts are as follows: Shishupal Yadav, Manoj Harnikhede, Naval Kishor Soni, Rishabh Jain, Satyendra Thakur, Asraf Khan, Vipul Baghel, and Praveen Singh Chouhan.
The current order has been passed in adherence with paragraphs 23 (B) (II) & (III) of the order in Praveen Pandey. The mandate issued in Praveen Pandey mentions that if the call for abstaining from work is given by any High Court Bar Association or District Court Bar Association, the State Bar Council shall intervene and forthwith declare such strike as illegal unless such strike has been resorted to in consultation with the Chief Justice and/or the District Judge.
On 20th March, the counsel for the Bar Council also submitted before the court that show cause notices would be issued as per Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against these office-bearers, granting them an opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct of making the call for abstaining from court work. If found guilty, the punishment would even include suspension of the enrolment.
The Bar Association, Seoni had earlier declared through an intimation dated 15.03.2024 that they would be on strike for three days on the dates of 18th, 19th and 20th March 2024. Afterwards, the court directed the State Bar Council to act appropriately and comply with the disciplinary directives issued in Praveen Pandey against delinquent office bearers.
The matter has been listed for 08.04.2024 in order to allow the counsels to file vakalath and reply for other respondents as well.
Background
Pursuant to the order passed by the court on 29.02.2024, all bar associations and individual respondents were directed to appear independently before the court in the Suo Moto PIL initiated by the court in 2023.
Recently, Madhya Pradesh High Court 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.
'25 Debt Scheme', against which the protest took place in 2023, 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 10th October last year, the Supreme Court 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 the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur bench and issued notice to bar association.
Case Title: In Reference (Suo Moto) v. The Chairman & Ors.
Case No: W.P. No. 7295 of 2024