[Lawyer's Strike] "Lawyers Must Show Responsibility": SC Stays MP HC Order Restricting Bar Association Office Bearers

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Supreme Court stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order that restricted Bar Association office bearers.The stay was granted by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. However, the Court also emphasized the importance of responsible conduct on the part of lawyers.

[Lawyer's Strike] "Lawyers Must Show Some Responsibility": SC Stays MP HC Order Restricting Bar Association Office Bearers — [Lawyer’s Strike] “Lawyers Must Show Some Responsibility”: SC Stays MP HC Order Restricting Bar Association Office Bearers

New Delhi: Today (April 10): The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had restricted ten office bearers of the Bar Association at Seoni from appearing before any court for one month.

The stay was granted by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. However, the Court also emphasized the importance of responsible conduct on the part of lawyers.

During the hearing, the Court expressed its views on the matter, stating,

“Lawyers must show some responsibility as well. You did not like some land allotted and you went on strike.”

While staying the High Court order, the Supreme Court issued a notice on the plea filed by the office-bearers of the Bar Association. Advocates Siddharth Gupta, Mrigank Prabhakar, and Shailendra Verma appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which not only prohibited the petitioners, who were elected office bearers of the Bar Association at Seoni, from appearing before any court for one month but also barred them from contesting elections in any Bar Association or State Bar Council of the State for three years.

The petitioners contended that the High Court’s order was passed without granting them an opportunity to be heard. Further, High Court abruptly removed them from their offices and constituted a new ad hoc committee of the District Bar Association, which they argued was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras.

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot assume the statutory powers conferred by Parliament on the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to impose disciplinary punishment and debar lawyers from appearing in court.

Relying on this decision, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the High Court’s order.

The stay granted by the Supreme Court provides temporary relief to the office-bearers of the Bar Association at Seoni, and the matter will be further examined during the course of the proceedings.

Case Title: Ravi Kumar Golhani and Ors. v The Chairman, State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.