"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...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...If advocates themselves abstain from work due to the call given by the respondent No.1, it is indeed a very sad day for the State of Madhya Pradesh." Observed by the MP High Court on Friday while directing the lawyers to end the strike against a scheme of the High Court for disposing of pending cases.

The bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra of MP High Court in a suo motu case virtually warned the lawyers for contempt of court action to be taken against the striking lawyers if the direction is followed.

Expressing its worry over the state of affairs, the Court observed,

The Lawyers protests erupted after a scheme envisaged by the administration of the High Court by which district courts are required to identify and dispose of the 25 oldest cases in each court within three months. It is felt that the move would put undue pressure on lawyers and judges, and that disposing of 25 cases in such a short span of time would be impossible.

The Chairman of the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh issued a communication asking all the Lawyer in the State to abstain from court work. He also addressed a letter to Chief Justice of MP HC that unless the High Court revoked the policy by 22nd March 2023, the lawyers would begin striking from 23rd March 2023.

On 23rd March, the lawyers began boycotting courts.

The order states that after he received the letter from the Chairman, Chief Justice Malimath had assured the Bar Council that they were "most welcome to submit all the issues being faced" so that the same could be considered, discussed and resolved at a meeting.

Dissatisfied with the response, the Chairman addressed another communication demanding that the scheme be adjourned for three months or be withdrawn immediately, failing which courts in the State would cease to function.

At this point, the Bar Council of India (BCI) stepped in, urging the State Bar Council to withdraw the call for strike. Despite this, the Court noted, "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 observed. "The Bar Council has been a party to all the earlier proceedings before this court. Undertakings have been given. The directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal’s case (supra) have been flouted. There is no permission from the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the purpose of abstaining from court work."

The Court further said, "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 seeking to abstain from court work is opposed to the well established principles of the legal profession. The respondent No.1 cannot call for an illegal act to be done."

The Court added that it could not be a mute spectator to the blatant disobedience of Supreme Court orders by the State Bar Council and its Chairman. It also expressed its displeasure at the tone and content of the Chairman's letter, which appeared to the Court as more of a threat than a request.

It thus passed 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.

Case Details:-

W.P. No. 7295 of 2023
[IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTO) VS. CHAIRMAN, STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M.P. & OTHERS]