Today, On 2nd September, the Supreme Court set to examine the legality of two bar associations occupying premises within the same High Court campus. This comes in response to an appeal challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling that deemed the allocation of premises to the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association as illegal.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Monday, ordered a status quo regarding the Madhya Pradesh High Court premises while it deliberates on whether two distinct High Court Bar Associations can have separate premises allocated within the same campus.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, which declared the allotment of premises to the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association (MPHCABA) as an independent entity to be unlawful.
Read Also: SC to Review Bar Association Claim- ‘Exemption From Paying Electricity Bills’
In response to the appeal filed by the Senior Advocates Council, the Supreme Court issued a notice and maintained the status quo.
The dispute originated when Advocate Amit Patel, a member of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association (MPHCBA), filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court, contesting the allocation of premises to the MPHCABA, a breakaway faction of the MPHCBA, within the Jabalpur High Court campus.
Patel contended that the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association (MPHCBA) is the only bar association officially affiliated with the High Court and, therefore, the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association (MPHCABA) should not be entitled to any facilities within the High Court premises.
On May 3, 2024, the High Court ruled in Patel’s favour, declaring that the allocation of premises to MPHCABA by the former Chief Justices was a violation of established procedures and arbitrary. The court further stated that MPHCABA could not receive the High Court’s patronage as an independent legal entity.
This decision prompted the Senior Advocates Council to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Read Also: Reservation for Women Lawyers in DHCBA|| Delhi HC Seeks Bar Associations’ Response
Advocate-on-Record Sarvan Retam Khare represented the petitioner in the case, while Advocate-on-Record Himashu Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondent, Amit Patel.
Earlier in May, the Madhya Pradesh High Court also dismissed a petition from MPHCABA challenging the State Bar Council’s refusal to recognize it as a separate bar association.
The Court noted that there was no valid reason to establish a parallel organization, given that the objectives of the Advocates Act and the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam of 1982 already being met by the existing bar association.