The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently registered contempt of court case against the chairman of the State Bar Council chairman and every elected members for initiating strike and abstaining from judicial work from March 23.
A single bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan noted that the strike ordered by the chairman and elected members of the State Bar Council was in flagrant violation of the High Court’s order issued on March 24 in a suo motu case started by the Court in response to the strike.
As a result, it directed the Court’s registry to register a criminal contempt of court case against them.
“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). Therefore, the Registry is directed to register a contempt case (criminal) against the Chairman of the State Bar Council and every elected member of the State Bar Council and issue notice to them as to why this Court ought not to 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,” the order reads.
Lawyers in Madhya Pradesh have been protesting a scheme proposed by the High Court administration in which district courts are required to identify and dispose of the 25 oldest cases in each court within three months.
It is believed that the move would place undue strain on lawyers and judges, and that resolving 25 cases in such a short period of time would be impossible.
To protest the policy, the chairman of the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council issued a communication requesting that the entire lawyer community refrain from court work.
An order warning lawyers that contempt of court action would be taken against the striking lawyers if the direction was not followed was issued by a division bench of the Court on March 24 when the lawyers initiated their strike.
The lawyers, however, continued to refuse to work.
The single-judge noted in the order that the issue for which the Bar Council has called for a strike was addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the March 24 order.
“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 bench noted.
Justice Atul Sreedharan noted that the strike was still in effect despite the Chief Justice Ravi Malimath’s order on March 24, as well as the rule set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal v. Union of India, which stated that lawyers do not have the right to resort to strikes.
As a result, it directed the registry to file a criminal contempt of court case against the State Bar Council’s chairman and elected members.
