In a significant rebuke, the Allahabad High Court expressed serious concern over the conduct of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Koil, Aligarh for adjourning a case in deference to a Bar Association's strike resolution, calling the act illegal and unacceptable.
The matter arose in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1389 of 2025, filed by petitioner Ashok Kumar against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The court was hearing the case under the bench of Hon'ble Justice J.J. Munir.
Background of the Case
The Sub Divisional Magistrate had previously passed an order dated 24.01.2023, which was challenged in an appeal by Satyapal Singh, under Section 34(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Commissioner, Aligarh Division. The Commissioner found the appeal non-maintainable and allowed Satyapal Singh to file a Restoration Application before the SDM under Section 38(2) of the same Code.
Accordingly, Satyapal Singh filed the restoration plea. The matter was scheduled to be heard on 25.07.2025.
However, due to a strike by the local Bar Association, no advocate appeared in the case. As a result, the SDM adjourned the matter to 28.07.2025, without hearing it.
“It is well settled by now that any kind of abstinence from professional duty on a call by the Bar Association, is absolutely illegal and non-est,”
— observed Justice Munir, citing various Supreme Court decisions.
Supreme Court Judgments Cited
The court backed its stance with landmark judgments, including:
- Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45
- Common Cause v. Union of India (2006) 9 SCC 295
- Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) 17 SCC 27
- District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya (2020) 17 SCC 67
- Recent SC order dated 20.12.2024 in Faizabad Bar Association vs. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh
The Bench also referred to a Division Bench ruling dated 25.09.2024, where the High Court emphasized:
“We hope and trust that the lawyers will see the cause in correct perspective and would desist from resorting to strike.”
The High Court came down heavily on the SDM, stating that:
“Accepting a strike resolution may amount to misconduct on the Presiding Officer’s part inviting recommendation for disciplinary action.”
The court added that such behavior could also lead to removal of Bar Association office bearers if they are found obstructing court proceedings.
The court directed the SDM to file a personal affidavit explaining why she adjourned the matter based on the strike, and why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her.
The court further ordered the SDM to submit full particulars of the Bar Association, including details of the President and Secretary who called for the strike on 25.07.2025.
“Let the Sub Divisional Magistrate… show cause by her own affidavit, why appropriate action may not be taken against her…”
The matter has now been adjourned to 06.08.2025 for further hearing. The court also directed that a copy of the order be served to the SDM via the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, within 24 hours by the Registrar (Compliance).
Case Title: Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case Number: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1389 of 2025