Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Visheshar Singh Gond S/o Late Shri Bhaw Singh Gond (Died) - Appellant
Versus
Gendlal S/o Puchai (Died) - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1481 of 2021
Decided On : 28-03-2023
| 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 Act;
(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these directions and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the court;
(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates who have prevented other advocates from entering the court premises or from conducting their cases in the court;
(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being debarred from practice.
3. In spite of that Lawyers are abstaining from court work.
4. Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to issue notice to counsels for the appellants as well as counsels for the respondents No.1 to 10 to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for violating the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P and Others (supra).
5. Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same.
6. The records of the Courts below have been received.
7. This appeal is listed for arguments on admission.
8. As none appears for the appellants, therefore it appears that the appellants must have lost their interest in prosecuting this appeal.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution under Order41 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 17 Rule 2 CPC.
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
