“Court proceedings are formal proceedings which must be allowed to be conducted in a dignified manner without undue disruptions”
“The legal profession involves fighting for the rights of the clients and the Advocate tends to react more aggressively even outside the Courts. This is a character which is developed by an Advocate by virtue of the nature of duty that he performs for his clients”.
Supreme Court said that while acting as counsel or advocates or in their capacity as advocates, the advocates cannot undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. However, in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, their role as witnesses cannot be ruled out.
The Court was of the view that a 63-year-old employee, who is to face a departmental enquiry along with the criminal trial becomes “tongue tied” and therefore he would require the assistance of a Legal Practitioner.
In its Resolution dated 17-08-2023, the Collegium recommended the names of the judicial officers and advocates to be appointed as Judges in High Courts of Gauhati and Orissa.
The Collegium recommended Biswadeep Bhattacharjee’s name keeping in mind his 30 years’ experience at the Bar and good knowledge and efficiency in handling criminal and civil matters.
The Court stated that any interference under S. 482 of CrPC would be rendering approval of the accused-advocate’s depravity and will have a chilling effect on legal profession. Thus, the accused-advocate must come clean in a full-blown trial.
The Supreme Court held that the rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid.
The lawyers are bound by their commitment to the duties cast on them by Part VI (Rules Governing Advocates), Chapter II (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette) of Bar Council of India Rules which define their duties towards the Court, Client, Opponent and Colleagues.
Delhi High Court held that foreign nationals are not per se barred from being considered for enrolment under Section 24 of Advocates Act.
In the case at hand, a man had shot himself dead following a monetary dispute with the 74-year-old Advocate’s sone and two others.
The Delhi High Court holds that pursuing Master of Law Program would not be considered as a break in practice of an advocate as per Resolution No. 160/2009 passed by Bar Council of India. Further, the advocate is not required to suspend his enrolment to pursue the said program.
Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner was enrolled as an advocate in 2010 and he fulfils the requirement of “continuously practicing as an advocate for not less than 7 years on the last date of receipt of applications”.
Delhi High Court observed that the respondent is a law graduate enrolled with the State Bar Council and despite being aware of the binding nature of the orders of the Court has shown scant regard for the legal process.
Born on 10-02-1962 in Hisar, Justice Surya Kant, has the distinction to be appointed as the youngest Advocate General of Haryana. Before being elevated as a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Surya Kant served as a Judge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and as Chief Justice of Himanchal Pradesh High Court.
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR registered against the law intern who projected himself as a proxy counsel on the instructions of his Advocate and the Court observed that the law interns who were merely students should be counselled, properly informed, and instructed instead of registering FIRs against them.
Allahabad High Court: In a suo motu contempt application against an Advocate, the division bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shanker
by Sucheta Sarkar†
If the Court would allow such an interpretation, then this provision would become redundant, and a floodgate of law graduates, who may not be enrolled with the bar councils to become an ‘advocate’ but are still practicing law, would pour in. The purpose of keeping the proceedings fact-based and free expert legal advisory, would be lost.
“Questioning the honesty of a person is the worst form of accusation and the same can have a serious detrimental effect on the reputation of a person. It would harm the reputation of any person, and especially an advocate, in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society. There is no doubt that such a statement is per se defamatory.”