The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reconsider the contempt notices issued to those advocates, who were not able to attend the High Court proceedings and who were not office bearers of the state bar council.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed the orders on a petition challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order of March 25, by which it initiated contempt proceedings against more than 2500 state lawyers for going on a strike against a scheme for disposing of pending cases.
Taking in view the difficulty of lawyers to attend Court proceedings, when a strike had been called by a bar association or bar council, the Apex Court said that in such circumstances, it was not feasible for the lawyers to be physically endangered.
The top court of the country further said that the High Court ‘may revisit’ the issue, so that the lawyers who were not able to attend the proceedings and who were not office bearers, did not suffer unnecessarily.
The present appeal was filed by Varun Thakur, one of the MP lawyers against whom contempt proceedings were initiated.
Noting that the issue has mostly been settled now, the Apex Court directed the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The counsel appearing for Thakur contended that a contempt notice was issued against all 2500 advocates who did not appear on the day of the strike, which had a larger impact on them.
He said Thakur and other lawyers were not in a position to ignore the call of the bar council. Let there be action against the state bar council and its members, added the counsel.
On March 25, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur had initiated a suo motu Public Interest Litigation after the Chairman of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh asked the Advocates to abstain from court work from March 23.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed that it was the duty of a lawyer to uphold the rule of law. It was he, who fought for the legal rights of a litigant.
The High Court said there were almost 20 lakh cases pending in the district court judiciary and more than four lakh cases pending in the High Court. Every effort was being made by the High Court to reduce the pendency.
The Bench said the action of the respondent No.1 (Chairman, State Bar Council of MP) seeking to abstain from court work was opposed to the well-established principles of the legal profession. The respondent No.1 could not call for an illegal act to be done, it added.