The Indore High Court Bar association had decided to take strict disciplinary action against senior advocates who defied Bar's decision to abstain from work on April 30, to register protest against setting up of a high court bench in Bhopal.
On Thursday, the association's president advocate Pradeep Gupta said, "A general body meeting will be held on May 13 to decide whether the members should be suspended or terminated of their Bar membership for their actions."
Last week the association had issued notices to senior advocate A K Sethi, advocate Rahul Sethi, advocate Rishabh Sethi, government counsel Vinita Phaye, deputy additional advocate general Banwarilal Yadav for defying the bar's decision.
In reply to the association's notice, advocate Rahul Sethi said, "I have never committed any such act or omission at any point of time, which will be against the interest of the member advocate or Bar Association."
In his reply, Sethi further added that in light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ex Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another in 2003, abstaining from court work will amount to professional misconduct; and it was further affirmed by main seat of Madhya Pradesh High Court on April 27, 2015 that such an action is violation of law laid down by Supreme Court and hence amounts to contempt of court.
Sethi also issued a contempt notice to office bearers of the Bar association citing the apex court's verdict, for threatening him of expulsion for Bar's membership for rightfully abiding to his duties.
Sethi told Hindustan Times that the association had not called for an extraordinary general body meeting before giving the bandh call and had communicated about the decision to members through whatsapp messages.
Gupta told media persons that Sethi's contempt notice means nothing to them and had dumped the notices into a trash can.
Following the protest on April 30, 2015, the high court had also issued show cause notices to advocates who abstained from work terming it as 'professional misconduct'.
Gupta said that the court had nothing to do with the matters of the association, if any objection should be raised against our actions, it should be by our clients and not by the court.
Sources revealed that this game of mud-slanging on each other is a politically motivated one and directly inter-linked to Bar politics.