The Supreme Court, on March 26, 2025, instructed the senior members of the Seoni District Bar Association in Madhya Pradesh to submit an unconditional apology for initiating a lawyers' strike in March 2024. The strike was called in protest against the allocation of land for a new court complex without prior consultation with the Association.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order. The High Court had imposed restrictions on 10 members of the Seoni District Bar Association, barring them from practicing in any court for a month and preventing them from contesting elections for the Bar Association or Bar Council of the state for three years.

During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel argued that the strike was primarily in response to the alleged unilateral decision of the state government to allot land for the District Court Complex without consulting the District Bar Association.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Strikes Down MP Rule Disqualifying Visually Impaired Candidates from Judicial Services

Acknowledging the matter, the CJI observed:

"You (petitioners) should not have done that... file a written apology."

Following this, the Court issued an order stating:

"The petitioner states they will file a written unconditional apology within a period of 10 days. Relist in the week commencing 5th of May."

Additionally, the Court allowed the interim stay on the impugned Madhya Pradesh High Court order to continue.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Strikes Down Mandatory Arrest Condition in Bail Order

Previously, on April 10, 2024, a Supreme Court bench led by then CJI, Justice DY Chandrachud, had stayed the High Court’s order. The original decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra, was made in response to the senior members of the Bar Association announcing a strike from March 18 to March 20, 2024.

This directive stemmed from an earlier ruling in Praveen Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, wherein the High Court had explicitly prohibited lawyers from going on strike. Notably, the Supreme Court’s intervention came during the hearing of a suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding lawyers resorting to strikes.

Case Details : RAVI KUMAR GOLHANI vs. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH Diary No.- 14523 - 2024