Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manisha Rawat vs Smt. Usha Ahirwar on 20 December, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 WP-25058-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 25058 of 2021
(SMT. MANISHA RAWAT Vs SMT. USHA AHIRWAR AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 20-12-2021
None for the petitioner.
Advocates are abstaining from work today.
The Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt.) vs. Union of
Ind ia reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 opined that despite strike of the
Advocates, the Courts may decide the matters on merits. The relevant portion
of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :-
"20. Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty
of every Advocate who has accepted a brief to attend
trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a
prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer
who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court
because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association.
I t is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as
unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to
refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for
strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar
Council. It is settled law that Courts are under an
obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it
and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers
are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and
obligation of Courts to go on with matters or
otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to
the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is
passed by Bar Associations expressing want of
confidence in judicial officers it would amount to
scandalising the Courts to undermine its authority and
thereby the Advocates will have committed contempt of
Court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir
Singh's case (supra) that if they participate in a boycott
or a strike, their action is ex-facie bad in view of the
declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer's duty is to
boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of Court/s.
Lawyers have also known, at least since Roman
Services' case, that the Advocates would be answerable
for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-
appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call.
35. In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right
2 WP-25058-2021
to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on
a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can
only be by giving press statements, TV interviews,
carrying out of Court premises banners and/or
placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm
bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away
from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts
etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf
of their clients cannot not attend Courts in pursuance
to a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly
refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No
lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences
by the Association or the Council and no threat or
coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be
held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar
Association can permit calling of a meeting for
purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and
requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It
is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the
dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the
Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye)
to a protest abstention from work for not more than one
day. It is being clarified that it will be for the Court to
decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or
integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench.
Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must
first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge
before Advocate decide to absent themselves from
Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District
Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar.
It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn
matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary,
it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their
boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words,
Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts.
It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client,
abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he
shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be
addition to damages which he might have to pay his
client for loss suffered by him."
The same principle can be gathered in Mahabir Prasad Singh v.
Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 37; Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v.
Subhash Kapoor, (2001) 1 SCC 118; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State
of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27; PLR Projects (P) Ltd. v. Mahanadi
3 WP-25058-2021
Coalfields Ltd., (2019) 10 SCC 306; District Bar Association Dehradun
v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1071.
Record perused.
In the subject matter of brief, "the petitioner averred that she was
appointed on 25.2.2020. Her appointment was assailed by respondent No.1
by filing an appeal. The appellate authority, remanded the matter back. In
turn, an enquiry was conducted with regard to the fact that whether the
petitioner belongs to Below Poverty Line. Since, report does not suggest that
petitioner belongs to the said category, she was removed from the post of
Anganwadi Worker. In turn, she filed an appeal before respondent No.5
which came to be dismissed on 25.10.2021".
The petitioner has not chosen to assail said orders, in the relief clause
by mentioning dates etc.
Assuming said order is under challenge, how a writ of Quo Warranto is
maintainable is another question. Let the petitioner address on this aspect.
List the matter after three weeks.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
PK
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR
Date: 2021.12.21 18:25:06 IST
