In Reference (Suo Moto) vs The Chairman
2023 Latest Caselaw 7736 MP

                                                                1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                         WP No. 7295 of 2023
                                            (IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTO) Vs THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 11-05-2023
                                Shri Manoj Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Qazi Fakhruddin, Shri

                          Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Sheersh Agrawal - Advocate,
                          Shri Sanjay Verma - Advocate and Shri Paritosh Trivedi - Advocate for
                          respondents.

A detailed order was passed by this Court on 24.03.2023. Thereafter,

notices were issued to the respondents. All the respondents have been served except respondents No.111, 121, 148 and 226. The Office-note would indicate that there is no association by the respective names of these respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they will verify and submit with regard to these four respondents.

2. However, so far as merit is concerned, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the respondents submit with regard to the following issues.

3. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, the answers to the following

questions should also form part and parcel of the reply:-

1. Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 was followed while declaring the strike of the lawyers from 23.03.2023?

2. Whether the directions issued therein have been complied with or not?

3. Under what authority of law was the strike called for by the respondent No.1 and the proceedings if any which culminated thereon?

4. Subsequent to the order dated 24.03.2023 what efforts were Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 5/15/2023 3:58:41 PM

made by the respondent No.1 to ensure compliance of the judicial order?

5 . Was any effort made by him for compliance or did he exhort the lawyers to continue the strike notwithstanding the judicial order?

6. Any other issue which is relevant for this purpose.

4. So far as remaining respondents are concerned, other than filing their reply, they should also answer to the following questions:-

1. Being the Head of the respective associations, whether any resolution or any authority was confided in them to abstain from court work from 23.03.2023 onwards? A copy of the resolution, if any, to be produced before the Court.

2. Whether they were compelled or otherwise by the respondent No.1 to proceed to abstain from the court work in spite of the judicial order dated 24.03.2023?

3. Whether the concerned respondents have asked the lawyers to comply with the court order or have exhorted them to disobey the court order?

5. So far as the progress in this petition is concerned, material on record would indicate that the Bar Council of India vide Annexure D to the petition has addressed a communication dated 22.03.2023 to the respondent No.1 seeking to withdraw from the strike. It does not appear that anything has been done with regard to the same. Therefore, we deem it just and necessary that the Bar Council of India be arrayed as respondent in this case.

The Bar Council of India represented by its Secretary, New Delhi shall be arrayed as respondent No.237. The concerned respondent shall be issued notice of this petition. Along with the reply, he shall also submit with regard to the following issue:-

1. Subsequent to the communication of the Bar Council of India dated 22.03.2023, whether the State Bar Council obeyed the said order or not?

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 5/15/2023 3:58:41 PM

2. In case there was a disobedience of the order passed by the Bar Council of India, whether any action has been taken or requires to be taken for the purpose that the State Bar Council disobeyed the order of the Bar Council of India?

3. Whether the Bar Council of India being aware of the order passed by this Court dated 24.03.2023 has taken any steps to ensure that the order of this Court has been complied with or not?

4. Whether disobedience to the court order by the State Bar Council entails any consequences?

Call after vacation to enable the respondents to file their reply.

                              (RAVI MALIMATH)                                         (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                CHIEF JUSTICE                                              JUDGE

                          C




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 5/15/2023
3:58:41 PM