Madhya Pradesh High Court Initiates Suo Moto PIL Over Lawyers' Strike, Says Those Deliberating Avoiding Proceedings Will Face Serious Consequences
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on Friday initiated Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation as a result of the communication by the Chairman of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh asking the Advocates to abstain from court work from 23rd March. Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed that We are of the considered view that the duty...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on Friday initiated Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation as a result of the communication by the Chairman of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh asking the Advocates to abstain from court work from 23rd March.
Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed that
We are of the considered view that the duty of a lawyer is to uphold the rule of law. It is he, who fights for the legal rights of a litigant. There are almost 20 Lakh cases pending in the district court judiciary and more than 4 Lakh cases pending in the High Court. Every effort is being made by the Hon'ble High Court to reduce the pendency. The action of the respondent No.1 (Chairman, State Bar Council of MP) seeking to abstain from court work is opposed to the well established principles of the legal profession. The respondent No.1 (Chairman, State Bar Council of MP) cannot call for an illegal act to be done.
Background of the Case
A large number of Advocates of Madhya Pradesh have gone on strike against a policy of the administration of the High Court to dispose of long-pending cases in district courts. The advocates are protesting against the 25 Debt Scheme introduced by the High Court in October 2021 to tackle the issue of old cases which have been pending for many years and have not been taken up. As per this policy, district courts are required to identify and dispose of the 25 oldest cases in each court quarterly.
By a letter dated 20th March, the Chairman of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh addressed a communication to the Chief Justice to the effect that unless the scheme relating to the disposal of 25 identified cases in every quarter is not withdrawn by 22nd March they would protest. Furthermore, it was stated in the communication that a general body meeting was held on 18th March and it was unanimously resolved that if the High Court does not withdraw the scheme pertaining to the disposal of the 25 oldest cases up to 22nd March, all the lawyers in the State would collectively protest and will abstain from judicial work w.e.f. 23rd March.
The Chief Justice has communicated to the Chairman and the members of the Bar Council that they could submit the issues being faced by them; so that they can be considered and resolved.
The Bar Council of India had also directed the State Bar Council to take steps for withdrawal of the call for strike immediately by the Bar Council as well as by the Bar Associations of the State.
"On 23.03.2023, we found that advocates were not present in our court as well as at the Benches at Indore and Gwalior. They were also absent in other courts of the State," the Court said and therefore directed the Registrar General to obtain a report from each one of the courts in the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to the happenings on 23rd March.
"We are extremely shocked, worried and pained about the manner in which things have unfolded", the Division Bench remarked.
The Court relying upon the Apex Court decision in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Another observed that, the Apex Court have time and again held that a call to abstain from work is illegal and lawyers cannot go on strike. Even assuming it is a rarest of rare cases, where it has been resorted to, then the guidelines postulated in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal case has to be followed. Furthermore, the permission of the Chief Justice has to be obtained in advance and the Court pointed out that the Chairman of the State Bar Council failed to do so.
“Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah when translated into English means that those who protect Dharma will be protected by Dharma or in other words, it also means that those who destroy Dharma, Dharma destroys them. Therefore, in this context, when it is applied to the present scenario, it would mean that those who protect the law will be protected by law", the Court said.
The Court observed that it is the duty of the lawyers to fight for the legal rights of their clients and to ensure the rule of law. However, in the present scenario instead of upholding the Supreme Court decision in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal’s case, it has been violated by disobeying the directions issued.
"Whatever may be the issues being faced by the lawyers, they cannot exercise their rights without first performing their duty. Their duty is to protect the legal rights of the litigants. It is only after they have done so that they can exercise their rights and that too in accordance with law", the Division Bench observed.
"Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the litigants are the ones who suffer. Their cause in the court is not being considered in view of the absence of the counsels. The litigants have suffered because of this. Today is the second day, the lawyers are abstaining from attending the court. The entire judicial system is intended only for the benefit of the litigants. Everyone in the system is geared to deal with the grievances of the litigants. If advocates themselves abstain from work due to the call given by the respondent No.1(Chairman, State Bar Council of MP), it is indeed a very sad day for the State of Madhya Pradesh," the Court further added.
Thereby, since the order issued by the Apex Court has been violated and keeping in mind the interest of the litigants, the Court issued the following directions:
(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh are hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective courts forthwith;
(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these directions and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the court;
(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates who have prevented other advocates from entering the court premises or from conducting their cases in the court;
(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being debarred from practice.
The Court further directed the Registry to ensure that all the respondents are served with the notice of the petition as well as the aforesaid directions.
Case Title: In Reference (Suo Motu) v. Chairman, State Bar Council of MP and Ors.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 43