Praveen Pandey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 8078 of 2018, Judgment Date: Jul 31, 2018

Law Laid Down -

• The High Court has power to issue a writ to any person or Authority including any Government within its territory for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution of India and/or any other purpose. The writ jurisdiction is being exercised to protect the fundamental rights of the members of the Bar to appear in the Court and also the fundamental rights of the citizens of the State to get their cases decided with the assistance of the Advocates engaged by them. Therefore, the writ petition against call by the Bar to abstain from work has not become infructuous and that the writ court is bound to protect the rights of the citizens.
• The strike or abstention from work impairs the administration of justice and is inconsistent with the duties of an Advocate. The Bar Association is not a Trade Union under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The Trade Union has a right to demonstrate as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of the workers but the Advocates though are members of Bar Association but are professionals engaged by the litigants for the redressal of their grievances by intervention of the Court. By abstaining from work, the members of the Bar do not help anybody.
• The members of the Bar are protectors of independence of the judiciary. They must rise to maintain independence of judiciary by being an active participant in the administration of justice and not by withdrawing from the pious duty enjoined on them in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• The litigant has a right to get justice. He will get justice only if the Courts are functioning in the country but the members of the Bar cannot make the third pillar of democracy non-functional by deciding to withdraw from work. Their action is antitheses of democratic life of the country.
• The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012 framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 do not contemplate the consequences of the members of the Bar of abstaining from work either voluntarily or in terms of resolution of the State Bar Council or the High Court or the District Bar Associations. Therefore, the High Court is directed to examine and incorporate in the said Rules, the consequences of the members of the Bar, the office bearers of the Bar Association(s) and of the State Bar Council of not appearing in the Court including the action of the debarment of such erring members and the period thereof.

Praveen Pandey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others