Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a one-month suspension on ten office bearers of the Seoni Bar Association. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra, issued the directive, marking a significant moment in the ongoing discourse on the ethics of legal practice and the responsibilities of legal professionals.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a one-month suspension on ten office bearers of the Seoni Bar Association. This action was taken in response to a strike called by the association, which led the court to initiate a suo motu case against its members. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra, issued the directive, marking a significant moment in the ongoing discourse on the ethics of legal practice and the responsibilities of legal professionals.
The suspension, effective from March 21, 2024, affects prominent members of the Seoni legal community, including Ravi Kumar Golhani, Shishupal Yadav, Ritesh Ahuja, Manoj Harnikhede, Naval Kishor Soni, Rishabh Jain, Satyendra Thakur, Asraf Khan, Vipul Baghel, and Praveen Singh Chouhan. This decision came after the Bar Association announced a three-day strike on March 18, 19, and 20, prompting the High Court to take suo motu cognizance of the matter.
The court’s intervention sought to address the broader implications of such strikes on the legal system and the access to justice for the public. In its deliberations, the court referenced a prior case, Praveen Pandey v State of Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on July 31, 2018, which laid down specific directives for the Bar Council in instances where a High Court Bar Association or District Bar Association calls for a strike.
The State Bar Council’s counsel argued for adherence to these directives, proposing to issue show cause notices under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. This could potentially lead to the suspension of the enrollment of the involved office bearers for misconduct. Furthermore, the counsel submitted that, in line with the 2018 case’s directives, the sanctioned office bearers would be barred from appearing in any court for one month and from contesting elections for any post within the Bar Association or the State Bar Council for three years.
This ruling not only serves as a corrective measure for the involved lawyers but also as a deterrent against future disruptions of court proceedings through strikes. The legal fraternity’s reaction to this development has been mixed, with some viewing it as a necessary step towards upholding professional discipline, while others see it as a challenge to the autonomy of legal practitioners.
The respondent’s counsel requested additional time to file a reply, which the court granted. The case is set to be heard next on April 8, 2024, potentially setting the stage for further discussions on the balance between the rights of legal professionals and the imperative to ensure uninterrupted access to justice for the public.
This incident highlights the ongoing tension between the judiciary and legal practitioners over the appropriate boundaries of protest and advocacy within the legal profession. As the case progresses, it will undoubtedly contribute to the evolving discourse on the ethical obligations of lawyers and the mechanisms through which the legal system seeks to enforce these standards.
Also Read-Bombay High Court Asks Maharashtra Govt To Prioritize New Building Construction (lawchakra.in)
