Single-judge Justice Atul Sreedharan noted that the strike called by the the chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council was in brazen defiance of the order passed by the High Court on March 24 in a suo motu case initiated by the Court in wake of the strike.

It, therefore, directed the registry of the Court to register a criminal contempt of court case against them.

"The action on the part of the Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council and its elected Members amounts to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c)(ii) or (iii). Therefore, the Registry is directed to register a contempt case (criminal) against the Chairman of the State Bar Council and every elected member of the State Bar Council and issue notice to them as to why this Court ought not to prosecute them for criminal contempt of court on account of them having compelled the lawyers to abstain from judicial work which is interfering and obstructing the administration of justice in the State," the Court said on its Monday order.

Lawyers in the State have been striking against a scheme envisaged by the administration of the High Court by which district courts are required to identify and dispose of the 25 oldest cases in each court within three months. It is felt that the move would put undue pressure on lawyers and judges, and that disposing of 25 cases in such a short span of time would be impossible.

To protest against the policy, the chairman of the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh had issued a communication asking the entire lawyer community to abstain from court work. He had also addressed a letter to Chief Justice Ravi Malimath stating that unless the High Court revoked the policy by March 22, the lawyers would begin striking from March 23.

When the lawyers began the strike, a division bench of the Court had initiated a suo motu case on March 24 and passed an order cautioning lawyers that contempt of court action would be taken against the striking lawyers if the direction wasn't followed.

However, the lawyers continued to abstain from work.

In the order passed yesterday, the single-judge noted that the issue against which the Bar Council has called for the strike was dealt with in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the March 24 order.

Justice Sreedharan also noted that the Chief Justice on his part had called for the suggestion from the members of the Bar but instead, the chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council unnecessarily precipitated the matter by declaring strike.

"The State Bar Council, instead of resolving the issue in consultation with the Chief Justice and knowing fully well that has the option to challenge on the judicial side, the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, chose the path of confrontation without justifiable cause and attempted to bring the functioning of the entire High Court and the District Judiciary to a standstill," the Court said.

We judges are, at times, responsible for increasing burden on Supreme Court: Justice MR Shah