American Bar Association votes 15-0 against accrediting law schools outside the US, holding that “it would prove difficult to translate the culture, value and ethics of the American legal system to foreign law school students”, rejecting a 2008 application of a Chinese law school in the process. The vote also acknowledged that there is a need to establish standards regulating foreign lawyers who want to practice in the US. [ABA Journal]

Karnataka consumer forum orders Airtel to pay Rs 20,000 for ‘deficiency in internet service’ which caused mental agony to Karnataka-based petitioner Vinay B, when the ISP had mass-blocked torrent and video-sharing URLs such as Piratebay, Vimeo and others. Airtel was ostensibly complying with Madras HC’s ‘John Doe’ order three months ago. According to the forum, Airtel had provided deficient service by blocking the websites illegally while justifying their actions through misinterpretation of the court order [The Hindu]

“Non-appearance in court is the first sign of dereliction of duty, apart from being another kind of trick adopted by prosecutors”, said a Bombay HC bench which ordered that a Sholapur district public prosecutor be terminated from service pending an enquiry against him for allegedly remaining absent from the hearing of a criminal appeal. The appeal was against a doctor charged under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act [DNA India]

Delhi High Court Bar Association moves Delhi HC for striking down the Court Fee (Amendment) Act 2012 which provides for a 10-fold hike in court fee. The bar association said that the rate increase “negates the concept of a fee and partakes the character of tax”. “The respondent, whose primary duty is to administer justice should do so out of public revenues and not put justice up for sale," said the association. The increase will earn Delhi gov’t an additional annual revenue of Rs 450 crore [IANS]

Delhi district court judge issues circular, warning court staff of disciplinary action for flouting prescribed dress code and using mobile phones in court premises during court hours. Following Delhi HC’s example, the lower courts has issued uniforms for male and female employees of trial courts. Males are required to wear trousers an shirt, and females must wear Indian suits. However females were observed wearing “western outfits, bright-coloured clothes and casual clothing”. Delhi additional sessions judge Kamini Lau complained about this to the district judge who issued the circular [TOI]