Hot Off The PressNews

All India Bar Examination (AIBE-XVI) will be held on 31-08-2021.

The date for registration for AIBE-16 is extended till 25-09-2021 and the Payment date is extended till 28-09-2021.

ACTIVITY

IMPORTANT DATES

Online registration begins from

26th December, 2020*

 

Bank payment through challan starts from

 

26th December, 2020*

 

Online registration close

 

25th September, 2021*

 

Last date for payment

 

28th September, 2021*

 

Last date for completion of online form

 

4th October, 2021*

 

Online release of admit cards

 

11th October, 2021*

 

Date of Examination

 

31st October, 2021*

 

*Council reserves the right to extend the said examination date in case of unavoidable circumstances. In that case, any request for refund/adjustment of fees shall not be entertained.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: Observing that, Litigants are compelled to accept the wrong orders in view of inaccessibility to New Delhi and the exorbitant expenses towards engaging a counsel, the Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and R. Pongiappan, JJ., emphasized that,

When approaching the Supreme Court by a common man remains in dreams only, it would amount to denying justice.

Court’s opinion

While trying to support its opinion, the High Court considered whether Members of Parliament will travel to Delhi to attend Parliament by spending their own money without sponsorship by the Government? Answering that no Member of Parliament would spend his own money to attend Parliament, the Court said that when such is the position regarding the elected members of Parliament, no one could expect an ordinary litigant to travel to New Delhi spending huge amount to file Appeals against the orders of the High Courts or Tribunals.

Elaborating the above, Bench stated that the location of Courts and Tribunals in New Delhi alone, without having Regional Benches, causes injustice to the people living in far-flung places away from New Delhi.

It is very unfortunate that majority of the litigants are compelled to accept unfavorable orders, for lack of resources and access to Appellate Courts.

 Background

Present matter revolved around a complaint wherein it was stated that the petitioner was unable to travel to New Delhi, as the appeal against order passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry had to be filed before the Bar Council of India, which was located 2186 kilometres from Chennai and he would submit that keeping the Courts and Tribunals only in New Delhi would amount to denial of justice to majority of people living far away from New Delhi.

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his complaint by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu filed by him against the second respondent, who was engaged by the petitioner to act as his Advocate, for professional misconduct.

Second respondent was engaged in conducting the Rent Control Proceedings by the Petitioner’s brother. During the course of the Trial only, it came to the notice of the petitioner that second respondent collected the rents and issued receipts based on the alleged oral instructions of the petitioner’s brother. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

The findings given by the First Respondent was that the Petitioner’s brother, was not examined and it was fatal to the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the complainant alone had to prove and establish through evidence, the professional misconduct committed by the Second Respondent.

By giving such a finding, the Complaint was dismissed. If the Petitioner intends to prove that there was professional misconduct on the part of the Second Respondent, as rightly pointed out by the Disciplinary Committee, the Petitioner’s brother should have been examined who alone competent to speak about the transactions. Merely because the Petitioner’s brother adduced evidence before the Rent Control proceedings are not enough especially when serious allegations of misconduct are alleged against the Second Respondent.

Analysis, Law and Decision

In High Court’s opinion, the first respondent rightly dismissed the petition.

With regard to petitioner’s submission that alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocate Act before the Bar Council of India is not efficacious as the Bar Council of India was located more than 2000 kilometres away, and if one intends to challenge the first respondent’s order, he will have to travel to New Delhi and engage a counsel by spending lakhs of rupees.

Bench stated that Advocates in Delhi are charging very heavily than the State Counsel. Moreover, the petitioner will have to travel and for that also he will have to spend money.

Because of the above reasons, litigants though having a good case, are unable to challenge the same before the Supreme Court or before the Tribunals which are located in New Delhi.

“…many litigants accept the order passed by the Tribunals or the Bar Council or High Courts, in spite of the fact that they have a good case or an arguable case on merits.”

“Litigants are compelled to accept the wrong orders in view of inaccessibility to New Delhi and the exorbitant expenses towards engaging a counsel.”

The above would amount to infraction of Article 21 guaranteed to a citizen as the existence of remedy should be reasonably practicable and access being one of the essential requirements, ought to be provided, as otherwise, it would be a distant dream.

High Court held that the availability of alternate remedy under Section 37 of the Advocates Act is not efficacious, hence the writ petition was maintainable.

Bench noted that because of a decision on the administrative side of the Supreme Court, the efforts taken by the Centre to set up Benches in different parts of the country had been made futile.

No impression should be given that the Supreme Court is meant only for the people living in and around New Delhi or the States surrounding New Delhi.

Further, the Court stated that when the Supreme Court is inclined to grant permission to establish Benches of the High Courts, every citizen expects the same decision to establish Benches of the Supreme Courts in the South, North, East and West.

The Constitution framers thought of establishing Benches of the Supreme Court at various places, other the incorporation of below stated Article 130 would not have taken place.

Article 130 of the Constitution speaks about the seat of the Supreme Court, which is extracted as follows:-

“130. Seat of Supreme Court.- The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.”

Adding to the above, Bench observed that there was no constitutional bar for setting up or establishing Benches in various parts other than New Delhi.

Supreme Court is the custodian of rights of not only the litigants but also the entire population. Time has come to establish Benches of Supreme Court at other places apart from New Delhi.

When people are aware of their rights, they should have accessibility and affordability to reach every level of hierarchy of Courts.

High Court added that larger issue pertaining to access to Justice was discussed at length in the case of V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia, (2016) 7 SCC 686, wherein the Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench on a range of issues, such as inter-alia whether to establish a National Court of Appeal or Regional Benches of the Supreme Court, etc.

The Court, which originally used to sit en banc, rendering seminal Constitutional bench Judgements, has now, owing to the prevalent system of admissions under Article 136 become a regular court of appeal, hearing all kinds of matters on a variety of Jurisdictions. 

For the above-stated matters, Bench expects the Central Government to take some action.

Adding to the observations, Court also stated that

India is having a population of 136 Crores, 34 Supreme Court Judges are not enough and more number of Judges are to be appointed. Hence, this Court hopes and expects that justice would be rendered by all the stake holders by taking a pragmatic, appropriate, justifiable and a fair decision in the interest of the people.

Lastly, disposing the petition, Court granted two week’s time to file an appeal if he wishes so, before the Bar Council of India.

Opinion of R. Pongiappan, J.

I have gone through the judgment and I am of the view that the views and observations given in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 19 to 32 in the judgment are not related to the prayer sought for in the writ petition. Hence, with great respect, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe views taken by my esteemed Brother. Accordingly, except approving the decision in negativing the writ petition, I am not agreeing with the views and observations made in the above referred paragraphs of this judgment.

[Karthik Ranganathan v. Disciplinary Committee-IV, WP No. 13796 of 2021, decided on 19-08-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For Petitioner: Karthik Ranganathan (Petitioner-in-Person)

For Respondents: C.K. Chandrasekkar (For R1)

Rajesh Vivekanandan (For R3 & R4)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A three-Judge Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. is considering a writ petition seeking to declare that the right to access to virtual courts through video conferencing is a facet of fundamental rights. The Court has issued notice to various parties including the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court Bar Association and several High Courts.

A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the All India Association of Jurists and another. The All India Association of Jurists is an association of more than 5000 lawyers practicing in different States of the country, including various High Courts and the Supreme Court. The petitioner claims to seek intervention of the Supreme Court “to effectuate the right of access to justice, and the freedom of practicing the noble profession of law irrespective of geographical location“.

The petition lays challenge to an order dated 16-8-2021 passed by the Registrar General of the Uttaranchal High Court through which access to virtual courts has been proscribed by directing that no such request shall be entertained. The petition further states that a copy of the said letter has been forwarded to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts, with an anticipation of issuance of similar such orders by other High Courts of the country.  The petitioner claims that the impugned order of the Uttaranchal High Court is “death knell” for the very idea of virtual courts, an accessible, affordable justice in the country being propagated by the E-Committee of the Supreme Court.

The petition also seeks to raise the issue that large number of advocates of the petitioner Association as also those across the country are compelled to appear physically before many courts of the respective High Courts, in view of commencement of physical hearing in the High Courts.

In such circumstances, the petition is filed seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for:

(i) Declaring that the right to access to virtual courts through video conferencing for attending and participating in the conduct of any case proceeding is facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India;

(ii) Quashing the impugned order dated 16-8-2021 issued by the Registrar General of the Uttaranchal High Court prohibiting access to virtual courts through video conferencing;

(iii) Ensuring that lawyers and counsels are not denied in any manner the benefit of attending any category/class of proceedings being conducted before High Courts, only on the ground that they have opted for virtual court hearing instead of physical mode of hearing.

By the instant order, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner’s request to implead the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association as and among respondents. A notice has been issued returnable on 4-10-2021. [All India Association of Jurists v. Uttaranchal High Court, WP (C) No. 941 of 2021, dated 6-9-2021]


Tejaswi Pandit, Senior Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner (s): Siddarth Luthra, Sr. Advocate

Siddarth R Gupta, Advocate

Sriram P., AOR

Shubhangi Jain, Advocate

Prerna Robin, Advocate

For the Respondent (s): Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate

Abhay Singh Yadav, Advocate

Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR

Mukesh K. Giri, Advocate

Hot Off The PressNews

Bar Council of India has notified the extension of date for registration of All India Bar Examination — XVI

Notification states as follows:

“The date for registration for AIBE-16 is extended till 15th July 2021, the rescheduled date for the AIBE 16 will be intimated soon. ” 


All India Bar Examination

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and SenthilKumar Ramamoorthy, J., addressed the concern with regard to the quality of education being compromised in law colleges due to the increasing number of law colleges being opened up.

Instant matter pertained to the mushrooming of law colleges in the State.

It was stated that the standard of education imparted at some of the existing law colleges and the infrastructure available needs to be looked into.

As per the State Bar Council, it has been taking vigilant and sufficient steps, but unless there was uniformity all over the country, whether under the aegis of the Bar Council of India or pursuant to Court Orders, the situation could not be appropriately addressed.

Bench stated that there was substance in what the Bar Council stated since regulation of law colleges in a continuous state allows easy access.

Since orders have been passed earlier pertaining to the present matter hence Bench stated that the only thing that can be said is for the Bar Council to be vigilant as far as this State was concerned, since it cannot go beyond the territorial limits.

Bench expressed that the matter needs to be looked into, in-depth, by the Bar Council and possible orders have to be sought at an all India Level to ensure that the quality is not compromised in course of more law colleges being born in the guise of opportunities being created.

However, High Court held that no mandamus could be issued. Further, since it may not be effective merely to regulate the opening of law colleges within the boundaries of this State as easy access to law colleges across the neighbouring States will always be open, no meaningful order is possible to be issued at this level.

Bench suggested that the petitioner can continue the crusade but he may carry the said request to a different level.[M.D. Ashok v. Tamil Nadu State Government, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1289, decided on 23-03-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For Petitioner: Mr M. Madhuprakash

For Respondents: Mr V. Jayaprakash Narayanan State Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2

                               : Mr. S. R. Raghunathan for respondent No.3

Hot Off The PressNews

Days after the Chief Justice of India, Justice S.A. Bobde objected to a Law student (appearing party-in-person before the Supreme Court) using the expression “Your Honour” for addressing the Court, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, has issued the following clarification:

A matter which was listed before the Supreme Court of India, the Chief Justice of India has been stated to be taking objection to the term “Your Honor” being used by a Law Student who was appearing as a party in person as per practice of the Superior Courts of India.

Bar Council of India with regard to the above matter clarified that as far as back on 28-09-2019 on the request made by Office-Bearers of Bar Association of some High Courts with regard to the Advocates addressing the Court, it was resolved that as per mostly preferred and prevalent practice, lawyers of the country be requested to address the Judges of various High Courts and Supreme Court as “My Lord” or “Your Lordships” or “Hon’ble Court” while Lawyers of Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and other Forums may address the Court as “Your Honor” or “Sir” or the equivalent word in respective regional languages.

The said resolution was taken by the Council in order to maintain graciousness and to uphold the majesty (i.e. impressive beauty) of the Courts of the country.


Bar Council of India

[Press Release dt. 23-02-2021]

Hot Off The PressNews

Bar Council of India has notified that AIBE XVI onwards — No books, notes or study material will be allowed in the examination hall. Candidates can only carry Bare Acts without notes.

The said notification can be accessed on the following website: https://allindiabarexamination.com

 

———————————————————————————————————–

IMPORTANT DATES FOR AIBE-XVI

-26th Dec 2020 – Online Registrations Begins.

-21st Feb, 2021 – Last date for Online Registrations

-06th March, 2021* – Release of Admit Card Online.

-21st March,2021* – All India Bar Examination-XVI in various cities across India.


All India Bar Examination

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram comprising of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members), considered whether Bar Council of India is an ‘enterprise’ under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act.

Informant filed the present information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by Bar Council of India (BCI/OP 1).

Informant worked as an executive engineer and planned to voluntarily retire to pursue legal education. He submitted that he appeared for LLB (3 years) entrance examination in the State of Andhra Pradesh and secured 1st rank in the examination.

Informant stated that BCI enjoys the dominant position in controlling legal education as well as legal practice in India.

Colourable Exercise of Power

Informant alleged that BCI has allegedly imposed maximum age restrictions upon the new entrants to enter into the legal education and thus, created indirect barriers to the new entrants in the profession of legal service.

The impugned Clause 28 has been incorporated by the BCI in contravention of Section 4 of the Act by ‘misusing its dominant position’. By having done so, the BCI has also allegedly indulged in colourable exercise of power.

With the above practice, the members of BCI conspired to reduce the competition to its electors and created indirect barriers in the profession of legal service.

Therefore, in view of the above, informant sought that the said clause be declared illegal and void ab initio and maximum penalty shall be imposed for violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act and in indulging in colourable exercise of power.

Analysis and Decision

Bench on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case stated that it is imperative to examine the status of BCI as an enterprise within the contours of the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Competition Act before proceeding further with regard to the allegation raised.

Whether the Bar Council of India is an ‘enterprise’ under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act?

Term ‘enterprise’ has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, as a person or a department of the Government, engaged in any activity relating to the provision of any kind of services.

Commission on going through the objective and functions of the BCI, noted that BCI appears to carry out functions which are regulatory in nature in respect of the legal profession, hence cannot be said to be an ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002.

In Case No. 39 of 2014, In Re: Dilip Modwil and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), decided on 12-09-2014, Commission had observed that any entity can qualify within the definition of the term ‘enterprise’ if it is engaged in any activity which is relatable to the economic and commercial activities specified therein. It was further observed that regulatory functions discharged by a body are not per se amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, Coram opined that no prima facie case under the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act was found and no case for grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act arose. [Thupili Raveendra Babu v. BCI, 2021 SCC OnLine CCI 1, decided on 20-01-2021]

Hot Off The PressNews

Bar Council of India decided to hold the next All India Bar Exam on 21-03-2021.

AIBE-XV is to be held on the scheduled date i.e. 24-01-2021 and there will be no change of date of All India Bar Exam-XV anymore.

For AIBE-XVI, the Online registration will start from 26-12-2020 and the last date for registration will be 21-02-2021. The last date for payment of exam fee would be 23-02-2021 and 26-02-2021 will be the final date for completion of online forms. Admit Cards shall be released online 06-03-2021 and the exam will be held on 21-03-2021.

In this way, Bar Council of India is going to hold two All India Bar Exams within a period of two months (i.e. All India Bar Exam-XV on 24-01-2021 and All India Bar Exam– XVI on 21-03-2021).


Bar Council of India

[Press Release dt. 21-12-2020]


Also Read:

Bar Council of India releases new schedule for All India Bar Examination–XV [Check New Dates]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: The Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., addressed a matter wherein it was stated that the law students in order to escape from the police have been using the Advocate Stickers on their vehicles.

Counsel, M. Subash Babu took note on behalf of the Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi and Nirajan S. Kumar, Counsel took notice of the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Petitioner’s Counsel alleged that the students who have been studying in the Law Colleges are using Advocate stickers by sticking them in their vehicles in order to escape from the police.

Adding to the above, many instances have been reported in the newspapers, in which goondas have missed the Advocate stickers while carrying the contrabands as well as for criminal activities.

Bench directed respondents to answer the following:

Whether the Advocate sticker is legally authorized and whether it has got legal sanction and why not this Court bans the Advocate sticker as it is being used for criminal activities by sticking it in the vehicles in order to intimidate the Police and escape from the cluthes of law.

[V. Ramesh v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr Ambedkar Law University,  2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5519, decided on 11-11-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

The General Council of the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 7-11-2020 has again considered the requests received from various quarters including various Bar Associations and State Bar Councils to extend the last date for furnishing the information as per the format required by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.

After consideration, the General Council of the Bar Council of India, has resolved to extend the last date for submission of the details of every practicing Advocate of the country sought as per the requirement of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India, till 31-12-2020.

Individual Advocates, who have not yet submitted their details are again requested to send their details through respective Bar Associations or through respective Bar Councils under whom they are enrolled. Even earlier too, the communication by the Bar Council of India has been addressed to Bar Associations and to Bar Councils only and Individual Advocates were specifically requested not to send any email with his/her detail to BCI by email. Individual Advocates should submit their details through Bar Associations or through Bar Councils as it will not be feasible to gather such required details of Advocates if they are sent individually, and sending it through Bar Associations and Bar Councils would be appropriate and feasible.

In fact, Individual Advocates who were sending details by email to BCI have been emailed as follows:

Kindly Note again as clearly stipulated in BCI Letter bearing 1653 dated 24-7-2020, no individual member of any Bar Association should send an email to this email id.

We are going to receive mails from many Bar Associations throughout the Country and Bar Associations are expected to send it over to us as per the attached Format.

Therefore, details as per the format attached should only be furnished by the concerned Bar Associations and not by Individual Advocates.

Kindly also find attached the afore referred letter sent by BCI to all Bar Associations through respective Bar Associations. If your Bar Association has yet not received the format and the above-referred letter of BCI, please provide a copy to them.

Kindly furnish us with the email id, phone nos., whatsapp nos. of either President or Secretary of such Bar, so that we can also send such information directly to them.

We repeat, individual emails are not to be sent on this email id with respect to information sought as per above referred BCI letter and chart.

The Bar Associations are required to be more active, as the details which have been sought, may not all be available with the State Bar Councils as the enrolment form which is generally filled up at the time of enrolment, does not have all the columns/details sought as per the prescribed format of the e-committee of the Supreme Court of India, and therefore the onus would be on Advocates and also on the Bar Associations as well as obviously on the State Bar Councils to ensure that details, as sought in prescribed format, is supplied.

It goes without saying that the Bar Council of India being the Statutory body to regulate legal profession and legal education has the right and discretion to reach out to any Bar Association, Bar Council and Individual Advocates too, and to issue general and specific directions and Bar Councils, Advocates, Bar Associations being an association of Advocates only are also bound to abide by such directions.

The Bar Council of India has been receiving queries from many quarters as to whether furnishing the required information as per the prescribed format is mandatorily required to be provided to the Bar Associations and/or the Bar Councils on letterheads of concerned Advocates or not and secondly, whether such information, which is being submitted has to bear the signatures of the Advocate/s furnishing such information or not as many Advocates were facing issues in this respect.

In response to the same, it is stated that it is not mandatory to furnish the information on letterheads and furthermore if the information is being sent by email to the concerned Bar Associations and/or to the Bar Councils, then it may not be possible to append the signatures on the prescribed format as that would entail taking a print out of the format, signing the same, scanning the same and thereafter uploading the same, which may not be feasible for many. Therefore, it is made clear herein that under such circumstances, it is not mandatory to append signatures while furnishing the information by email, if the same is not feasible.

It is reiterated here again that this scheme/proposal is for the benefit of all the Advocates. The Supreme Court has devised a method of communication with the Bar in 22 different regional languages of the country; the e-Committee has also been training the Lawyers for e-filings, virtual hearings etc. other necessary information/reports shall also be made available to Advocates.

It is also made clear that supplying details of advocates who are Members of respective Bar Associations/respective State Bar Councils will serve fruitful purpose to have the correct information about the enrolled Advocates all over India as per the format prescribed by e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.

It is made clear that there shall be no further extensions granted and any Advocate or Bar Association who/which does not cooperate in this endeavour, shall be liable for suitable action.

All-State Bar Councils and All the Bar Associations are also required to ensure strict compliance of this letter.

This is for your kind information and necessary compliance.


Bar Council of India

Circular dt. 12-11-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and J.B. Padiwala, J., allowed a petition which was filed praying to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in order to quash and set aside Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules to the extent that they prohibited the admission of a person who was otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate, but was either in full or part-time service or employment or was engaged in any trade, business or profession, as an advocate.

It is mandatory for an advocate to be enrolled as such before taking the All India Bar Examination.

As per the Bar Council of India Rules, no advocate enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 shall be entitled to practice under Chapter IV of the Advocates Act unless such Advocate successfully passes the All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of Gujarat has framed the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment Rules) under Section 28(2) (d) read with Section 24(1) (e) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Enrollment Rules”). As is mentioned in Rule 1 of the Enrollment Rules, a person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate but is either in full or part-time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession is not to be admitted as an advocate. Rule 2 of the Enrollment Rules requires every person applying to be admitted as an advocate, to make a declaration in his application that he is not in full or part time service or employment and that he is not engaged in any trade, business or profession contrary to the rules of State Bar Council and of the Bar Council of India made under the Act. The writ applicant duly filled in the application form and also paid fees of Rs 16,600 as required. The writ applicant also duly declared that she is in employment. * The Bar Council of Gujarat, however, did not accept the form of the writ applicant. The writ applicant was told that the application was not accepted as the writ applicant had declared that she was in employment and that a form of only that person who makes a declaration that she is not employed either in full or part time service or employment and is not engaged in any trade, business or profession can be accepted, the writ applicant further submitted that the aforesaid rule was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court keeping in view the interest of all passed the following interim order:

  • The writ applicant shall submit an application for enrollment on or before 09-10-2020, the copy of which is at Annexure-D to the writ application.
  • The interim order is passed only for the purpose of allowing the writ applicant to appear in the All India Bar Examination and this order shall not be treated as a permission to the writ applicant to continue with both, i.e, her employment and practice.
  • Since fees of Rs.16,600/- is already lying deposited with the Bar Council of Gujarat, the payment of further fees shall not be insisted upon. In case the current rules require deposit of fees higher than Rs.16,600/-, the writ applicant undertakes to pay such fees promptly.
  • The Bar Council of Gujarat shall accept such application and shall not require the writ applicant to resign from her current employment.
  • The Bar Council of Gujarat shall issue Provisional Enrollment Certificate to the writ applicant on or before 15-10-2020, considering that the online registration for the next All India Bar Examination closes on 17-10-2020.
  • The respondents shall permit the writ applicant to appear in the All India Bar Examination, as may be held.
  • The writ applicant undertakes that she will not practice as an advocate on the basis of the Provisional Enrollment Certificate issued to her.
  • The writ applicant shall further undertake that if after the issuance of enrollment certificate and after passing of the All India Bar Exam, if she continues to be in full or part time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession, she shall deposit her enrollment certificate with the Bar Council and shall not practice as an Advocate.
  • The writ applicant shall file undertaking in terms of this order on or before 09-10-2020.

[Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar v. Union of India, R/Special Civil Application No.  15123 of 2019, decided on 06-10-2020]


*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant ahs put this story together

Hot Off The PressNews

Bar Council of India

The General Council of the Bar Council of India, as a last and final opportunity, has resolved to extend the last date for submission of the details of every practicing Advocate of the country sought as per the requirement of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India till 15-11-2020.

Further, the Council made it clear that no further extensions shall be granted and any Advocate or Bar Association who/which does not cooperate in this endeavor shall be dealt with firmly.

The State Bar Councils are also required to ensure the strict compliance of the above-stated.


Bar Council of India

[Letter dt. 29-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J., urged the Bar Council of India to amend its Rule 5 in order to ensure that the candidates who complete their Higher Secondary and UG through the regular course alone are made eligible to participate for selection in the 5-year course or 3-year law course, as the case may be.

The instant petition sought a direction to respondents with regard to the admission of the petitioner in the 3-year LL.B degree course during the academic year 2019-2020.

The petitioner applied for the three years L.L.B. Degree Course under the MBC category and the petitioner on obtaining necessary cut off marks.

Petitioner at the time of counselling was informed that he was not eligible to be considered for selection on the ground that he did not satisfy requirements laid under Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Hence the present petition was filed.

What does Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India talk about?

Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules makes it very clear that an applicant must graduate through a regular programme conducted by a University for the purpose of being considered for admission in the 3 year Law Course.

However, the proviso, which should be considered as an exception to the main Rule, expands the eligibility. The proviso makes it clear that even the applicants who have obtained Higher Secondary or Under Graduation through Distance Education will also be eligible for admission for the 5-year course or the 3-year course, as the case may be.

Further, it has been added that a person who has not completed 10th cannot qualify for 10+2, a person who has not completed 10+2 cannot qualify for UG and a person who has not completed UG cannot qualify for PG. This is the literal meaning for the explanation appended to Rule 5 of Bar Council of India Rules

Court made the observation that as per the existing Rules, the petitioner is eligible for being considered as a candidate for the 3 year B.L Course subject to the condition that the petitioner again participates in the selection for the academic year 2020-2021 and obtains necessary cut off marks.

Bench while disposing of the petition also stated that,

Necessary changes in Rule 5 should be made to ensure that the candidates who complete their Higher Secondary and UG through the regular course alone are made eligible to participate for selection in the 5 year course or 3 year course, as the case may be.

In the absence of the same, persons who have not even gone to the regular school or college will get into a law college for the first time in their life and that may not be a healthy trend to maintain the quality of education in Law.

The Bar Council of India should seriously take this suggestion into consideration and make necessary changes to the Rule.

[M. Krishnakumar v. Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2017, decided on 19-08-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

New Schedule for All India Bar Examination (AIBE) — XV is as follows:

Activity Important Dates
Online registration begins from

 

16th May, 2020*

 

Bank payment through challan starts from

 

16th May, 2020*

 

Online registration close

 

17th October, 2020*

 

Last date for payment

 

20th October, 2020*

 

Last date for completion of online form

 

24th October, 2020*

 

Online release of admit cards

 

31st October, 2020*

 

Date of Examination

 

8th November, 2020*

 

*Council reserves the right to extend the said examination date in case of unavoidable circumstances.

NOTICE


All India Bar Examination

[Notice dt. 27-08-2020]

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

Due to increased groupism in the Bar Councils, on many occasions Bar Council of India has been receiving complaints and a very anomalous situation arises some times.

Because of some impractical rule of some states, the situation in some of the State Bar Council leads to unwanted groupism, resulting in an unhealthy atmosphere and inefficient functioning of the State Bar Councils.

Only in the recent past, Bar Council of India has found that in Odisha, there was abstention from Court work by Advocates for about 2 months due to some petty issue. This was the result of group politics in the State Bar Council.

BCI has received several complaints with regard to the manhandling of Chairman of one State Bar Council and he was compelled to resign.

During the last elections of State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India, the reports of corrupt practices for removal of some honest members and office-bearers (who did not succumb to undue pressure of members of State Bar Councils or member of Bar Council of India), has also been noticed.

In some of the State Bar Councils, the Office-Bearers were changed frequently and they were compelled to resign without completing their tenure (as per the Rules of Bar Councils) only on account of unwarranted and malicious fear of “No-Confidence Motions”.

In view of the above, BCI deemed it proper to frame uniform mandatory Rules in this regard for the fair, smooth and fearless functioning of Bar Councils and Bar Council of India. These Rules are mandatory for Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils.

Bar Council of India is to provide for the elections of its members, as contained in Section-7 of the Advocates’ Act, 1961.

Therefore, BCI has the sole authority to frame rules for removal of its members by bringing “No-Confidence Motion” against its Members, if required under these rules.

In accordance with the resolution,

  • Motion of No Confidence against any office-bearer or member of Bar Council of India can be brought by a requisition submitted by 2/3rd Members of the Bar Council of India. If the proposed motion is to be brought against the Chairman, the same will be addressed to the Vice-Chairman of the Council and in all other cases, it will be addressed to the Chairman. The Chairman or Vice-Chairman (as the case may be) shall notify the meeting of the General Council within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. The Secretary shall place the notice before the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, within a period of two days from the date of receipt of this in the office.
  • Motion of no confidence can be brought only on the ground of some proved misconduct.

Read the detailed notification here: NOTIFICATION


Bar Council of India

[Notification dt. 14-08-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Bar Council of India introduces Mediation with Conciliation as a compulsory subject to be taught with effect from the Academic Session 2020-2021 in 3 years and 5-year LL.B Degree.

BCI directs all the universities to incorporate the above-stated subject as a compulsory paper from the Academic Session 2020-2021.

In times of pandemic and Covid-19, when physical hearings in courts are suspended and norms of social distancing are required to be maintained, Mediation as a tool for conflict resolution has come to the fore. Litigants have been drawn towards Mediation and have begun to realize it’s immense benefits.

Mediation and Conciliation has been seen to lead to resolutions without undergoing arduous trials and moreover resolutions/solutions are arrived at, at a relatively lesser time.

Further BCI states that the teachers for such programs must be trained adequately. The qualification of teachers required to teach Mediation with Conciliation shall be decided by the Bar Council of India in consultation with any authority/institution as it may deem fit including U.G.C. For the moment, applications may be invited from the lawyers having at least 10 years of practice with theoretical knowledge and practical experience in these subjects, inclusive of trained Mediators/Conciliators, and from persons having 2-years LL.M Degrees in these subjects.

Training will also be introduced by the Bar Council of India, in the near future and subsequently, such certificate/ Diploma holders would be preferred for being appointed as Teachers for teaching the subject of Mediation and Conciliation.

Read the detailed Circular, here: Mediation_Mandatory_Bar_Council_Course


Bar Council of India

[Circular dt. 13-08-2020]

New releasesNews

EBC’s Master Guide To All India Bar Examination

Overview:

This is a comprehensive Guide for All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India. This Guide has been prepared based on the examination patterns over a period of time.

The following are some of the unique features of this Guide:

  • Authoritative commentary on all the prescribed subjects in one compact volume.
  • Includes the latest case laws and statutory amendments, viz. Sabarimala caseAadhaar caseGuidelines for court functioning through video conferencing during Covid-19 pandemicre; Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018; Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018; Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018; Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019; Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019; Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019; J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019; Constitution (104th Amendment) Act, 2019; Code on Wages, 2019 and many more.
  • Includes over 2300 exam-styled multiple choice questions along with answers.

This Guide covers the following subjects:

Constitution of India

Penal Code

Criminal Procedure Code

Civil Procedure Code with Limitation Act

Evidence Act

Contract Act

Specific Relief Act

Transfer of Property Act

Negotiable Instruments Act

Family Law

Law of Tort (Including Motor Vehicles Act and Consumer Protection Law)

Public Interest Litigation

ADR including Arbitration

Administrative Law

Company Law

Environmental Law

Cyber Law

Intellectual Property Law

Labour Law

Professional Ethics (Including cases of Professional Misconduct under Bar Council of India Rules)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Taxation Law

This Guide is indispensable for law graduates appearing for All India Bar Examination.


Buy Your Copy Soon!

ALL INDIA BAR EXAMINATION

Hot Off The PressNews

Bar Council of India (BCI) has decided to postpone the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) which was scheduled for 16-08-2020, in view of COVID-19 Pandemic.

It has also extended the last date for receipt of applications to 31-08-2020.

The new date for examination will be notified later.


[Story to be updated]

Hot Off The PressNews

Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, dies at age 59.

Background

Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta was born on 24-11-1961, did matriculation from Oriental Academy, Jammu in 1976,  B.Sc with full medical subjects from G.G.M Science College, Jammu in 1982, and L.L.B. from University of Jammu.

Journey as an Advocate

Enrolled as an Advocate in Bar Council of Delhi in 1986, joined Jammu bar in the Chamber of S.S Lehar (Senior Advocate) and practised in all fields including Criminal, Civil, Revenue, MACT etc. in subordinate courts and before High Court.

Higher Judicial Service

He was selected as a direct recruit in Higher Judicial Service as District and Sessions Judge on 22-01-2004 and was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge Doda, served as District and Sessions Judge in various Courts at Jammu, including 1st additional, 2nd additional, 3rd additional, Additional District and Sessions Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge Jammu.

Furthermore, he also remained posted as 3rd and 4th additional District and sessions Judge Srinagar, Judicial member special tribunal, J&K at Jammu. One man-forest tribunal Jammu and Kashmir, Principal District and Sessions Judge Leh, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajouri.

Lastly, he was posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jammu, from where elevated to permanent Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.

He took oath as a High Court Judge on 06-06-2017.


Also Read:

J&K HC | Unending period for launching remedy may lead to an unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy; application for condonation of delay rejected

J&K HC | Tehsildar directed to adjudicate the matter of equal bifurcation of land between the co-sharers as per relevant rules

J&K HC | Writ under Art. 226 admissible only if there is allegation of violation of a statutory duty on the part of statutory authority

J&K HC | Bail denied; no relief granted under S. 426 of J&K CrPC