Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cancels Premises Allotment to Unrecognized Bar Association, Stresses Need for Transparency and Legal Compliance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has cancelled the allotment of premises to the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association within the High Court campus, emphasizing the necessity for transparent and objective criteria in such administrative decisions. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh, underscores the importance of adherence to principles of justice, equity, and legal recognition in administrative actions.

Lack of Transparent Criteria: The Court critically examined the procedural compliance in the allotment of the premises. “There was neither any policy for allotment of such space nor any established rules or procedures,” observed the bench. The absence of a transparent process in the allotment was a key factor in the Court’s decision to cancel the allotment, highlighting the need for established criteria to avoid arbitrariness.

Legal Entity Recognition: The legal status of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association was a significant point of contention. The Court upheld the State Bar Council’s decision to deny recognition to the association, citing that only recognized bar associations are entitled to claim facilities. “The principle of ‘One Bar One Vote’ must be adhered to, ensuring no parallel unrecognized bodies enjoy patronage without legal sanctity,” the Court stated.

Administrative Discretion and Judicial Review: The judgment delved into the discretionary powers of the Chief Justice in the allotment of public property. The Court found that such discretion must be exercised within the bounds of transparency and fairness. “Any allotment must be founded on sound, discernible, and well-defined policies,” the bench emphasized, referring to established judicial principles.

Justice Vivek Agarwal remarked, “The decision to allot public space must not be arbitrary or on the sweet will of any authority but must adhere to the principles of transparency, objectivity, and legal compliance.”

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to revoke the allotment of premises to the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association sets a precedent for ensuring fairness and transparency in administrative decisions involving public property. By reinforcing the necessity for legal recognition and adherence to established procedures, the judgment affirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and equality. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future administrative actions, ensuring that they are conducted within the framework of law and equity.

Date of Decision: 3rd May 2024

Amit Patel vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Latest Legal News