Bar Council of India (BCI)
The Bar Council of India (BCI) unanimously voted in S Prabhakaran as its new chairman yesterday, for the next four months. The BCI also unanimously voted in Prabhakaran’s predecessor Manan Kumar Mishra to preside at the BCI as its third-time chairman from May 2016 onwards.
New Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur told it like it is, in a speech at a function hosted by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Madurai advocates association president W Peter Ramesh Kumar was asked to answer to contempt charges by the Madras high court after the high court felt his attitude was “one of confrontation”, reported PTI.
Ramesh is the president of the Madurai Bench High Court Advocates Association and he was one of 14 lawyers suspended by the Bar Council of India for violence.
A division bench at the Madras high court’s Madurai bench - justices V Ramasubramanian and N Kirubakaran - initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against him, asked him to file his reply by 19 January and rejected his request for eight weeks time to reply.
Delhi University’s (DU) Faculty of Law is still not in the clear 15 months after the Bar Council of India (BCI) first threatened to permanently de-affiliate the 92-year-old establishment for inadequate infrastructure.
The government wants advocates debarred from practice, for committing “moral turpitude” offences, according to its prayer to the Supreme Court, reported DNA.
The Government of India asked the Supreme Court to rule that offence of the nature of moral turpitude by a lawyer will result in debarring of the errant lawyer in line with similar provisions in other professional services like charted accountants, engineers and doctors reported The Supreme Court had asked for the assistance of Attorney General’s office in a case of contempt against an advocate practicing at Uttar Pradesh.
The government filed a compilation in the consequences of contempt in professions other than law and observed that though there is a provision of debarring in other professions for the offence of contempt, the Advocates Act, 1961 has no such provision. The powers of bar council are limited to offences that stand proven and the law is silent on commission of serious offences including murder, rape etc by advocates.
The government then requested tp the Supreme Court to make rules in this regard under Section 24 of the act to fill the lacunae. It said, “Every high court in India under section 34 (1) of Advocates Act and the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution of India has the power to frame rules with respect to the contempt of court committed by the lawyers,” it was reported.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) renewed its dubiously awarded bar exam contract to underperforming exam agency ITES Horizon, without a public tender of the contract and without holding a council meeting for members’ consensus on the renewal.
The suspension of 20 more errant lawyers by the_Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry_, as reported by the Times of India takes the toll of Madras lawyers suspended recently from practicing in any court or tribunal, to 35.
Among the latest 20 suspended advocates are 10 who laid siege to the court of Madras high court chief justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on 14 September.
10 more lawyers of the court, not among the suspended 20, maybe awaiting action over their misbehaviour with the Central Industrial Security Force officers deployed at the court who, the lawyers claim, had filmed the frisking of a woman advocate.
The _Bar Council of India (BCI) _has reportedly said that following its September 2015 precedent of direct action against the lawyers if the state bar council fails to act stringently, it may again take direct action in the present case as well.
Bar Council of India (BCI) associate managing trustee Rajinder Singh Rana and former vice chairman Raju Dhanapal Raj were tried before a special CBI court in Delhi yesterday, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 6 lakh to approve Global Law College in Ghaziabad.
The ninth All India Bar Examination (AIBE IX) has been postponed by almost three months to the new “tentative” date of 6 March 2016, from the originally announced 13 December 2015 exam date.
Bar Council of India (BCI) member Rajinder Singh Rana and former BCI vice chairman Raju Dhanpal Raj were charged for corruption by a special CBI court, for taking bribes in exchange for a favourable inspection report to a law college
The Supreme Court refused to stay the rules regarding the Certification of Practice (CoP) of the Bar Council of India (BCI) reported webindia.
A division bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and RK Agrawal were hearing transfer petition of BCI and declined to stay the CoP rules. The court had stayed the CoP rules in August.
The CoP rules require practicing lawyers to renew their registration with the bar council every five years. The deadline for the registration was extended to 31 December 2015 by the BCI following the orders of the court.
Senor advocate KK Venugopal was briefed by advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad for the BCI He argued in court that the number of fake lawyers was growing in the bar. Venugopal reportedly submitted that these advocates move freely in courts wearing robes and soon the situation in the Madras high court would be replicated everywhere else.
The Supreme Court allowed the BCI to continue the CoP rules but also reportedly warned it not to be prejudiced against lawyers not practicing in courts. The division bench adjourned the matter for further hearing without giving any next date, it was reported.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) is to continue functioning as per current procedure, as the BCI succeeded in its appeal against the Madras high court order that had suggested transferring its functions to an expert judicial body, reported The Hindu.
The Madras high court on Friday stayed its justice N Kirubakaran’s order in which he had given 14 radical recommendations including the transfer of BCI’s function to a body headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
A bench of Chief Justice SK Kaul and justice TS Shivagnanam passed an interim stay on four of the 14 recommendations in justice Kirubakaran’s 6 October order.
Disciplinary proceedings set to begin today against 14 lawyers who were suspended by the Bar Council of India for creating disorder in Madras high court, have been stalled by the Madras high court, reported the Business Standard.
A bench of justices R Sudhakar and VM Velumani restrained the Special Disciplinary Committee (SDC) formed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTP) to hold an inquiry against the suspended lawyers who had allegedly stormed various courtrooms and shouted slogans against judges, as was reported by Legally India.
The bench was hearing advocate and petitioner-in-person M Mohammed Rafi’s plea seeking to move the displinary proceedings to Karnataka State Bar Council’s committee, as originally proposed by the BCI Rafi has alleged that initially, the BCI constituted a disciplinary committee consisting of members from the Karnataka Bar Council so that a fair and proper inquiry could be conducted. But following a “sly” request from the BCTP, the inquiry was transferred to it.
The petitioner claimed that the suspended lawyers have good relationship with the members of BCTP nominated by BCI to inquire against them, making the whole process a hogwash. The petitioner had reportedly made a representation to the BCI to transfer the inquiry to another state on 29 September citing open support to errant lawyers by lawyers of the BCPT, which was rejected.
The court has directed the Secretary of the BCTP, who constituted the disciplinary committee, the Chairman of the BCI and the SDC to give their views on the plea in Rafi’s petition.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) will appeal the 6 October Madras high court order that suggested disbanding the BCI and replacing it with a body of experts as well as doing away with the three-year LLB degree.
Justice N Kirubakaran of the Madras high court passed radical directions on a petition asking the court to curb entry of persons with criminal antecedents into the legal profession and to maintain purity of law courses.
The notice has reportedly being sent by the Bar Council of India (BCI) to the seven sitting Tamil Nadu and Puducherry state bar council members for opposing the BCI’s earlier purported disqualification of 15 local advocates for alleged violence.
BCI sources in New Delhi told TOI on Wednesday that the BCI chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, had written to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry directing the latter to give a list of its members who had participated in the Trichy meeting. Relying on the statement of the additional solicitor-general, the BCI chairman wanted the state council to issue a show-cause notice to the members and seek explanation.
reported The Times of India.
Disqualified advocates are not allowed to contest bar council elections for six years.