Allahabad High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) filed regarding a Gaon Sabha land, the Single Judge Bench of J.J. Munir, J., rebuked the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Koil, Aligarh (‘SDM’), for adjourning a case due to a Bar resolution whereby Advocates had abstained from their professional duties.
An appeal was filed by respondent 5 against an order passed by the SDM before the Commissioner, Aligarh, under Section 34(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (‘the Code’), in the present PIL. Since the appeal was not maintainable, it was dismissed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved, respondent 5 filed a restoration application (‘the application’) before the SDM under Section 38(2) of the Code. On the day of the hearing for the application, i.e., 25-07-2025, since Advocates were abstaining from work, no Advocate appeared to press the application, and the matter was adjourned.
Noting the aforesaid adjournment, the Court reiterated that any kind of abstinence from professional duty on a call by the Bar Association was absolutely illegal and non-est. In this regard, the Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt.) v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45, Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (2006) 9 SCC 295, and other landmark cases.
The Court stated that if no one appeared to press the restoration application and there was a resolution by the Bar, the Court could not have sided with the resolution and fallen foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
“Accepting a strike resolution may amount to misconduct on the Presiding Officer’s part, inviting recommendation for disciplinary action against the concerned officer, who adjourns the case in deference to a resolution of the Bar asking members to abstain from their professional duties in Court.”
The Court further added that such office bearers might also be removed from office.
Accordingly, the Court directed the SDM to show cause via an affidavit regarding why appropriate action may not be taken against her in the matter on account of adjourning the case in deference to a Bar resolution asking their members to abstain from their professional duties. The Court further directed the SDM to furnish particulars of the Bar Association, its President, and Secretary, on whose call the Advocates abstained from their professional duties.
[Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P., Public Interest Litigation No. 1389 of 2025, decided on 28-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Mohd Haleem and Nishi Sengar
For the respondent: C.S.C. and Krishna Kant Singh
