disciplinary proceedings

At a time when the judiciary is arguably facing its greatest internal crisis in decades, Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has struck again, noting in a letter that “the entire institution is becoming a mockery at the hands of only 3-4 such Advocates” (yes advocates!) who create “ugly scenes in the courts every day”.

Tamil Nadu-based advocate K Muthuramalingam won an undertaking from the state bar council last week in his Madras high court writ petition against the call for nationwide strikes by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and its chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has stayed its order of 24 July that had suspended, without notice or due process, 126 Tamil Nadu advocates who had allegedly been involved in the strikes against the Madras high court’s controversial new disciplinary rules.

Delhi Police has filed three separate chargesheets accusing three lawyers and suspended BJP legislator OP Sharma of the violence in the Patiala House Courts complex in February.

A Supreme Court bench of justices Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel yesterday asked the Law Commission to consider whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) is a suitable regulator of the legal profession within six months.

Three months after the violence before the Patiala House court complex in the capital in which journalists were assaulted by lawyers, Delhi Police say all they have been able to do is “examine” the visual footage of the incident and having identified the assaulters.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur today said that he would examine the plea of advocate Mrinal Kanti Mandal, against whom Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s had ordered action by bar councils after Mandal had requested Gogoi’s recusal.

On 18 February 2016, Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjan Gogoi passed an order referring the conduct of an advocate to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Delhi bar council for “taking up appropriate action in respect of” conduct that “cannot be appreciated”.

The Supreme Court was urged today to initiate contempt of court proceedings against three lawyers who were caught in an India Today sting operation claiming that they had beaten JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya Kumar for three hours in police custody and would inflict more harm on him.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) would conduct an inquiry into yesterday’s alleged assaults on journalists and others by lawyers outside the Patiala House district court.

Four journalists, including one from IANS, and some JNU students were assaulted at a court here on Monday by a section of lawyers.

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) 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.

Even as an association of female lawyers in the Supreme Court has petitioned the court to ban gang rape lawyers ML Sharma and AP Singh, they might end up getting away with allegedly inciting murder. But why not redraw the boundaries of adversarial litigation while we're at it, asks Saurav Datta.

PTI reported:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought response from two advocates, representing the 16 December gangrape convicts, against whom a women lawyers body has sought action for allegedly making derogatory remarks against women in a BBC documentary on the case. “We have heard the argument, pleadings and grievances urged in the petition. The matter requires consideration in view of the factual and legal submissions,” a bench comprising justices V Gopala Gowda and C Nagappan said.

The bench issued notices to the two advocates, ML Sharma and AP Singh, and sought their response in two weeks. The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, in its petition, had sought restriction on the entry of the two advocates in the apex court premises, alleging that their remarks in the controversial BBC documentary were “inhumane, scandalous, unjustifiable, biased, outrageous, ill-minded” and are a “direct affront to and in violation of the dignity of women”, especially those practising in the Supreme Court.