Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
, CJ
(Suo Moto) v. Chairman State Bar Council of M.P.
Headnote: Read headnote
1. This suo moto public interest litigation has been initiated as a result of the communication by the Chairman of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh asking the entire lawyer community in the State of Madhya Pradesh to abstain from court work w.e.f. 23.03.2023.
2. The facts are that by the letter dated 20.03.2023, the Chairman of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh addressed a communication to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to the effect that unless the scheme relating to disposal of 25 identified cases in every quarter is not withdrawn by 22.03.2023 they would protest the issue seriously. It is further stated therein that the general body in its meeting held on 18.03.2023 has unanimously resolved that if the Hon'ble High Court does not withdraw the scheme pertaining to disposal of 25 oldest cases up to 22.03.2023, all the lawyers in the State of Madhya Pradesh will collectively protest and will abstain from judicial work w.e.f. 2
The call to abstain from court work by the Bar Council violates statutory rights and Supreme Court directives.
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....
Disobedience of court orders by advocates constitutes grounds for contempt, leading to potential consequences including dismissal of appeals for lack of prosecution.
Lawyers have no right to strike, as established by the Supreme Court, and any such action will be treated as criminal contempt.
The Bar Council can initiate disciplinary action based on a reasonable belief of wrongdoing or a formal complaint without infringing on an advocate's rights until a final order is made.
Point of Law : It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judici....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of courts to ensure expeditious trials and take action against striking lawyers for professional misconduct and contempt of court, highlig....
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
Listen Article