Supreme Court Stays MP High Court Order Debarring 10 Advocates For Holding Strike, Says Lawyers Must Show Some Responsibility

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 10) stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court order which debarred 10 members of the Seoni District Bar Association from appearing in any court for a period of one month and contesting elections to the Bar Association or Bar Council of the state.  

The interim order of the Division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra, came as a consequence of the senior members of the Bar Association declaring to hold a strike from 18-20th March. The order was passed in light of the previous decision of the High Court in Praveen Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, prohibiting lawyers' strikes. It may be noted that the interim order came during the hearing of a Suo Moto PIL over the issue of lawyers going on strikes. 

Today, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stayed the operation of the High Court order while observing that lawyers and office bearers should act responsibly instead of declaring strikes.

"Why keep going strikes? Lawyers must show some responsibility you know...you did not like some land allotted to you and you went on strike," CJI said.

It was the case of the petitioners that the High Court had passed the order   without giving the concerned members an opportunity to hear. As per the petition, even before the order,  the petitioners were directed to be removed from their respective offices and a new ad-hoc committee was also constituted overnight. 

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 petitioners in their written submission have mentioned that the said strike was declared as a protest against the alleged unilateral decision of the state government to allot a new site for the District Court Complex without taking the District Bar Association into confidence. The lawyers and the members of the Bar Association were concerned of such a conduct and the fact that the new site allotted overlooks several important factors such as security and infrastructural development. 

"..a new site around four kilometres away in an absolutely insecure area was allotted for the new District Court complex. This new allotted area, was so allotted without examining the law and order, security issues as it is situated amidst the highly communally sensitive area of the city, where riots keep happening now and then and curfew orders under Section 144 being imposed by the Police Administration frequently. Overall, it is completely unsuitable for necessary judicial institutions, which is a threat not only to the life and liberty of the lawyers but also to the District Judges and Court staff working there. Without examining the social and infrastructural impact of the new project; without consulting or taking the District Bar Association into confidence, the aforesaid land at a new site was arbitrarily and unilaterally allotted by the Collector, District Seoni, for the construction of a District Court Complex. 

It is this decision of unilateral allotment of an unsuitable land without any consultation or information of the District Bar Association that triggered massive unrest in the whole lawyers' community of the Bar Association." 

The bench issued a notice in the petition while granting a stay on the High Court order

 " Issue notice,  there shall be a stay on the operation of the High Court Order."  

Background  

Pursuant to the order passed by the High 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 High  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 Details : RAVI KUMAR GOLHANI vs. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH Diary No.- 14523 - 2024

Counsels for Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, adv., and Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, Aor 

Click Here To Read/Download Order