Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
Visheshar Singh Gond S/o Late Shri Bhaw Singh Gond (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Gendlal S/o Puchai (Died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandatory attendance of advocates in courts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. consequences of advocates' non-compliance with court orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. dismissal for want of prosecution. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. On a call given by the State Bar Council of M.P. the lawyers are abstaining from work in spite of letter dated 22.3.2023, issued by the Bar Council of India thereby requesting the State Bar Council of M.P. to follow the various dictums passed by the Supreme Court from time to time in respect of strike.
2. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2023 passed in In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. & others (W.P. No. 7295/2023) has issued 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
Disobedience of court orders by advocates constitutes grounds for contempt, leading to potential consequences including dismissal of appeals for lack of prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council's call for strike was illegal, unconstitutional, and against statutory provisions. It also emphasized that lawyers have ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council has no authority to compel lawyers to abstain from work, and such actions are illegal, unconstitutional, and against sta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council's call for strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott....
Lawyers have a duty to ensure the smooth functioning of the court and cannot disrupt court proceedings. Strikes interfere with the administration of justice and are against the duty of lawyers as off....
Lawyers have a duty to attend trial, and strikes interfere with the administration of justice. Courts are obligated to hear and decide cases, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call ....
Lawyers have no right to strike, as established by the Supreme Court, and any such action will be treated as criminal contempt.
The court's trust in the Bar Council's commitment to address the issue of strike calls and the direction to the State to provide up-to-date information on the availability of judicial officers.
The right to practice law is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and Bar Associations cannot impose restrictions that infringe upon this right.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
