The Supreme Court issued a notice in response to a plea from the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur, and the M.P. High Court Bar Association. The petition challenges a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that dismissed their writ petition against the disconnection of their electricity supply and seeks a stay on the recovery of the bill.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court responded to a plea from the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur, and the M.P. High Court Bar Association. The petition challenges a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that dismissed their writ petition against the disconnection of their electricity supply and seeks a stay on the recovery of the bill.
The Supreme Court’s Response
During the hearing, the Vacation Bench, consisting of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti, acknowledged the concerns of the Bar but emphasized the importance of considering the broader implications. The Bench tagged this case with a similar pending matter set for August.
Justice SVN Bhatti questioned the rationale behind ordinary consumers bearing the cost of electricity used by the Bar, underscoring that institutions like the Parliament, Supreme Court, and High Court are also required to pay for their electricity consumption.
He stated-
“Why should ordinary consumers bear the cost of electricity used by the Bar?”
He further added-
“Institutions like the Parliament, Supreme Court, and High Court are also required to pay for their electricity consumption.”
The Bar Associations’ Plea
The Bar Associations’ plea calls for the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Department of Law to cover their electricity expenses. Their counsel highlighted a previous Division Bench ruling that exempted the Bar from such charges, citing their essential role in the justice system.
“The previous Division Bench ruling exempted the Bar from such charges, citing their essential role in the justice system,”
-argued the counsel.
The Financial Aspect
The cost in question is approximately Rs 94 lakhs, with the Bar facilities housing 70-80 chambers and 700-800 tables for lawyers.
This significant amount has become a point of contention as the Bar Associations seek relief from these charges.
Case Reference
The case, titled M.P. HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS, SLP(C) No. 13331/2024, highlights the ongoing debate over who should bear the financial burden of electricity costs for essential legal institutions.
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue a notice and tag this case with a similar pending matter underscores the complexity and significance of the issue.
It raises broader questions about the financial responsibilities of legal institutions and their impact on ordinary consumers.
Next Steps
As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by legal professionals and institutions alike. The outcome could set a precedent for how electricity costs for Bar Associations and similar institutions are handled in the future.
The hearing scheduled for August will likely provide further insights into the Court’s stance on this matter.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case reflects its recognition of the intricate balance between ensuring the operational efficiency of legal institutions and the financial implications for ordinary consumers. As the case unfolds, it will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing discourse on the financial management of essential services within the legal system.
This case exemplifies the broader challenges faced by legal institutions in managing their operational costs while fulfilling their critical role in the justice system.
The Supreme Court’s decision will not only impact the Bar Associations involved but could also influence similar cases across the country.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bar Associations
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
