The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of strikes by advocates and the duty of advocates to attend court proceedings. The judgment emphasizes the need for self-restraint and self-regulation by lawyers and the role of Bar Councils in preventing unprofessional conduct.

Hemant Gupta, CJ.

This order be read in continuation of the order dated 10.04.2018.

2. In the present petition the challenge was to a call by the State Bar Council to abstain from work for one week. By a detailed order passed on 10.04.2018, the Advocates in the State were directed to resume work forthwith so that poor, needy, under-trials, convicts and numerous other persons desirous of seeking justice from the Courts do not suffer on account of lack of legal assistance.

3. Subsequently, on 01.05.2018, an order was passed to examine the question as to what will be the reasonable reasons for the District Bar Associations or the High Court Bar Associations calling upon its members to abstain from work and if such call is given, what steps can be taken by the statutory or non-statutory Authorities.

4. On 09.05.2018, the suggestions were invited from the general public and the members of the Bar Associations as to in what circumstances, Bar Association can give call to its members to abstain from Court work and if the Bar Association gives the said call, how the situation is required to be addressed so that fundamental rights of the Advocates to appear before the Court are not infringed.

5. The State Bar Council has submitted written-submissions on 19.07.2018, inter alia alleging that the writ petition has become infructuous as the reliefs claimed in the writ petition have already been granted. However, it is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a detailed and exhaustive judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Another, (2003) 2 SCC 45 as well as in Common Cause, A Registered Society and others vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 9 SCC 295. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to discuss and decide the issues, which have already been settled by the Supreme Court. It is further stated that the question: as to whether fundamental right of an Advocate to appear before the Court is infringed or not, is purely hypothetical and academic in nature and should be answered only in an appropriate petition. It is also said that call for abstaining from work is purely voluntary in nature and thus, there is no question of violation of anyone's fundamental right when a member voluntarily abstains from work. It is also pointed out that the Supreme Court is seized of a matter in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.144/2018 (Deepak Kalra vs. State of M.P. and others). It is also pointed out that the Supreme Court can travel beyond the lis involved in the matter under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice but no such parallel power is available with the High Court. Therefore, the issue raised by this Court could not be answered in the present petition.

6. In terms of order dated 09.05.2018, a notice has been displayed on the website of this Court as also on the notice boards of the District Courts. In terms of the order passed, the suggestions have been received from Shri V.K. Nagpal; District Bar Association, Shahdol; Shri Anil Tiwari, Advocate; Shri R.N. Tripathi, Advocate; one Shri Sandeep Tiwari (through email) and also from petitioner Shri Praveen Pandey, Advocate. The suggestions so received, in brief, are as under:-

(i) SHRI V.K. NAGPAL:

It is stated that a Mafia is active in M.P. State Bar Council, who are pressurizing the judiciary on the basis of manipulated data and take resort to strike every day. The judiciary has become a silent spectator and that the Advocates are becoming bold every day, who are influencing the judiciary, administration and police. Under the guise of profession, the anti-social elements are receiving patronage and on the complaints of members of the Bar, the complainants are attacked with the threat to their lives. It is also alleged that CCTV cameras should be installed in the office of the Bar Council and in the judiciary complexes, so that the suspicious activities of the Advocates can be monitored.

(ii) DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, SHAHDOL:

The said Bar has made a gr