RAHUL SINGH JADON Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today also the lawyers are abstaining from appearing before the Court on, yet another call given by the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council.

(2.) The strike has been going on since the 23rd of March, 2023 on an issue that could have been resolved on the basis of consultation with the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh. On 24/03/2023, a Division Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice Vishal Mishra passed an elaborate order in W.P. No. 7295/2023 (In reference [Suo Moto] Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P and Ors.). In paragraph 4, the Ld. DB referred to the lack of support from the Bar Council of India and also referred to its direction in the letter dtd. 23/03/23 which asked the State Bar Council to withdraw the call for abstinence from work. However, despite the said letter of the BCI, the Chairman and members of the State Bar Council have enforced the call for strike.

(3.) In paragraph 9 of the aforementioned order, the Ld. DB has copiously referred to paragraph 19, 20 and 21 of the judgement passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8078 of 2018 (Praveen Pandey Vs. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh) wherein this Court had held that the State Bar Council had no authority to prevent or compel an Advocate to abstain from work even for a single day and declared the call by the State Bar Council to abstain from work as 'Illegal, unconstitutional and against the statutory provisions as well as contrary to the judgements of the Supreme Court'.