Lawyers’ Strike: Madhya Pradesh High Court Initiates Contempt Case Against State Bar Council, Warns Of Criminal Prosecution For Wrongful Restraint

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has initiated a contempt case against the Chairman of State Bar Council and its other elected members over continuing strike of lawyers in the state. The State Bar Council, instead of resolving the issue, chose a path of confrontation without justifiable cause, the court said.

The Gwalior bench on Monday issued notice to the elected members, asking why it should not prosecute them for criminal contempt of court on account of them having compelled the lawyers to abstain from judicial work "which is interfering and obstructing the administration of justice in the State."

Madhya Pradesh High Court has initiated a contempt case against State Bar Council Chairman & its every elected member over continuing strike of lawyers in the state. State Bar Council, instead of resolving issue chose path of confrontation without justifiable cause, the HC said. pic.twitter.com/ltGvEhR6Kx

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) March 28, 2023

Justice Atul Sreedharan in the order also said:

“Any attempt by any person in restraining a counsel to appear before the Court shall also render them liable to be tried for an offence under Section 341 of IPC.”

The lawyers in the strike are protesting against the high court Chief Justice’s administrative order directing the district courts to dispose of 25 oldest cases within three months. The Jabalpur bench of the high court had earlier initiated Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation in the matter and asked advocates to attend to their court work forthwith.

“Today i.e., 27/03/23, the strike called by the Chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council in brazen defiance of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No. 7295/2023 on 24/3/2023 which inter alia required lawyers to resume their work,” Justice Sreedharan said on Monday.

The court further said the Chief Justice on his part had called for the suggestion of the members of the Bar but instead the Chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council have, "by their intransigence, unnecessarily precipitated the matter by declaring strike."

“The State Bar Council, instead of resolving the issue in consultation with the Chief Justice and knowing fully well that has the option to challenge on the judicial side, the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, chose the path of confrontation without justifiable cause and attempted to bring the functioning of the entire High Court and the District Judiciary to a standstill,” the court said.

Justice Sreedharan further said that the the plight of the Bar, specially the Junior Bar is well known and they find themselves in a “between the devil and the deep sea” situation are helplessness to go against the “illegal diktat” of the State Bar Council.

The court said the members of the Bar “are compelled to abstain from work despite their unwillingness, and are equal victims of the capricious action of the State Bar Council as the litigants are.”

“The action on the part of the Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council and its elected Members amounts to Criminal Contempt as defined under Section 2(c)(ii) or (iii),” it said, while asking the Registry to register a contempt case.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 46