HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Praveen Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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 infri
Bharat Kumar K. Palicha v. State of Kerala
Common Cause, A Registered Society and others vs. Union of India and others
Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar
Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Another
Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar
Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd.
Roman Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor (2001) 1 SCC 118
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.