Back
Madhya Pradesh HC Notes Lawyer's 'Shock' Over Bar Election Loss, Adjourns Hearing
In an unusual judicial moment that has drawn attention to the human side of legal practice, the officially recorded that a lawyer was unavailable to argue a case due to the "shock" of losing a Bar Association election. The bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh passed the order on , a day after election results for the 2026–28 term of the were declared.
When Election Defeat Becomes a Matter of Court Record
The brief order in (titled ) noted that the arguing counsel, advocate , was absent. Pandey had contested the post of Secretary in the recently concluded Bar Association polls.
The court's order read:
"It appears that under shock due to loss in election to the
, arguing counsel is not available today."
Following the observation, the bench adjourned the matter to and directed that continue in the meantime.
A Case Already Accommodating the Election
The unusual did not come without prior notice. During the earlier hearing on , Pandey had specifically requested that the matter be listed after , as he was contesting the election. The court had obliged, scheduling the hearing for — only to find the counsel absent on that day as well.
Polling for the Bar Association elections took place on , and results were declared the following day. was elected President, while secured the Secretary post that Pandey had contested.
The Underlying Dispute: Pension and
Beneath the procedural curiosity lies a substantive legal issue. The case concerns a retired government employee challenging an administrative order that permanently withheld his pension following a by a sessions court on .
The petitioner, Dashrath Kumar, has argued that the state government stopped his pension permanently without providing him an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating . At an earlier hearing, the High Court had stayed the operation of the . The court is now examining whether the state's action complies with applicable pension rules and constitutional requirements of .
What the Order Says
The full text of the order is brief but striking:
"Learned counsel for the appellant prays for an . It appears that under shock due to loss in election to the , arguing counsel is not available today. On her request, list this case on . I.R. to continue till ."
The reference to "I.R." indicates that the granted earlier would remain in effect until the next hearing.
A Rare Acknowledgement in Judicial Practice
While courts routinely accommodate lawyers for elections, weddings, or personal emergencies, recording an election defeat as the reason for a counsel's absence — let alone attributing it to "shock" — is highly unusual in judicial orders. Legal observers note that the observation reflects the bench's candid, and perhaps empathetic, acknowledgment of the emotional toll that professional setbacks can exact, even on .
The matter is now listed for hearing on , when the court will resume examining the pension dispute on its merits.
