Supreme Court Rejects Advocates' Association's Plea Challenging HC Instructions To District Courts On Disposal Of Old Cases

A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was not inclined to issue notice in the petition. Considering the same, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Association sought permission to withdraw it.

Pursuant to the issuance of the impugned circulars by the High Court on its administrative side, advocates across Madhya Pradesh resorted to strike in protest. The Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court intervened and asked the advocates to return to work or else they would be met with contempt proceedings and debarment. Subsequently, the petitioner Association approached the Court assailing the legality of the circulars.

Before the Apex Court, the Counsel argued that the directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the District and Sessions Courts to dispose of cases in a time bound manner is contrary to Constitution Bench judgments of the Apex Court. It was mentioned that the direction of the High Court is detrimental to the interest of litigants as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Kaul reckoned, “So, the cases must go on and on?”

Answering in the negative, the Counsel submitted that since the High Court has asked for time-bound disposal of cases, it has adversely affected the trials, as the same are being conducted hastily and in a haphazard manner.

Not satisfied with the challenge to the circulars, Justice Kaul said, “It is a misconceived endeavour. This is some Association wanting a little extra mileage.”

The Counsel pointed out that as per her instructions, though the circulars were being implemented the underlying issue has not been resolved yet. However, Justice Kaul informed the Counsel that the issue was resolved in some manner with consent of the Bar. The Judge said that the only problem was that in some Courts the cases before it were not as old as 25 years. The Bar had objected to cases filed in recent times to be taken up in haste. He further indicated that the same seems to have been resolved now.

[Case Title: OBC Advocates Welfare Association v. HC of MP And Ors. WP(C) No. 718/2022]