Advocate
Advocates-on-Record can mark the appearances of only those advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on a particular day of hearing. Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722 : AIR 2024 SC 4785
After the change of power from one political party to another, the States/Union Territories are changing their panel of Advocates appearing in the Court. The Court is therefore required to grant adjournments from time to time on the ground of change. It is true that the States/Union Territories have power to change their empanelled Advocates, but while doing so, they must ensure that the Court's functioning is not adversely affected. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the States/Union Territories while changing the panel of Advocates continue the old panel for at least 6 weeks so that the Courts are not forced to grant adjournments. Sachin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 270
All miscellaneous amounts charged by Bar Councils for enrolment are 'enrolment fees'. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 : AIR 2024 SC 5338
Bar association's resolution to not represent a party - Such a Resolution could not have been passed. Right to defend oneself is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution of India and further right to appear for a client is also a Fundamental Right being a part of carrying on one's profession as a lawyer. (Para 3) Rupashree H.R. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 126
Bar Councils can't collect any amount exceeding fee specified under Section 24 of advocates act for enrolment. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 : AIR 2024 SC 5338
Conviction of Advocate In Contempt Case - The appellant's conduct before the High Court and for that matter, even before the Apex Court, amounts to undermining the system of the law and interfering with the course of justice administration. The High Court observed a pattern in the behaviour of the appellant. He has had a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with him. The misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters. The High Court correctly rejected the apology. (Para 21 & 22) Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2024 SC 1060
Court expressed its concern over the increasing number of false statements in cases involving premature release, urging the legal community to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. Virender Singh v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 695
Court issued comprehensive directions aimed at strengthening the functioning and accessibility of legal aid services across various levels. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs), and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) are tasked with ensuring efficient implementation and periodic review of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for legal aid services, particularly for prisoners and undertrial detainees. Key measures include enhanced monitoring of Prison Legal Aid Clinics (PLACs), updating statistical data to address shortcomings, promoting the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System, and increasing public awareness through campaigns in local languages, public signage, and community-based initiatives like street plays. Further, the court directed regular interaction with Jail Visiting Lawyers and Para Legal Volunteers, continuing legal education, and improving access to legal resources. High Courts are encouraged to append coversheets to judgments, informing convicts about free legal aid for higher remedies and display similar information on their websites. The Union and State Governments are urged to cooperate with Legal Services Authorities for effective implementation. NALSA retains the liberty to seek further directions as needed to achieve these objectives. The court expressed appreciation for the contributions of the Amicus Curiae and counsel in this matter. Suhas Chakma v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 828 : AIR 2024 SC 5658
Court underscored the duty of Public Prosecutors handling cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly in Special Courts, stating that these Prosecutors should fully recognize the responsibilities of their role, which includes acting as officers of the Court. The Court found no basis, as of the present date, to question the competence of the appointed Public Prosecutor and thus denied the request to appoint a special Public Prosecutor. Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 652
Every advocate is expected to come to the Court in proper attire as per the Rules and behave in the Court. (Para 7) Bijon Kumar Mahajan v. State of Assam, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 449
Exorbitant enrolment fees charged by state bar councils violate the right to profession, dignity and equality. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 : AIR 2024 SC 5338
Expunging of adverse judicial remarks against an advocate - The Supreme Court set aside interim orders passed by the High Court to the extent they contained adverse remarks against the appellant, a practicing advocate. The Court held that the remarks were unwarranted and unjustified. Citing its earlier decision in Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani, (2021) 9 SCC 92, the Court disapproved of the proclivity of the concerned High Court judge in making unnecessary remarks against advocates, emphasizing that such remarks could affect professional reputations without sufficient justification. Appeals allowed; remarks expunged. Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 785
High Court has imposed costs on the ground that the advocate had made an attempt to mislead the court. An advocate who appears before the court is first and foremost an officer of the court and is expected to discharge duties in that capacity. The advocate in this case is a junior at the Bar. Being a junior at the Bar is not an immunity from observing proper code of behaviour, particularly in dealing with the court. Soneshwar Deka v. Birsing Deka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 34
Issue of delayed payment of fees to lawyers representing the State - Continual instances where Advocates are forced to resort to legal action to recover fees from the State may dissuade skilled Members of the Bar from representing the State. Hence, it is imperative to implement a fair and efficient policy ensuring prompt and timely payment of fees to Advocates representing the State. (Para 2) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gopal K. Verma, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 137
It is very usual that the Judges do react during the course of arguments being made by the lawyers, sometimes in favour of and sometimes against a party to the proceeding. However, that does not give any right or leeway to either of the parties or their lawyers to the proceedings to post comments or messages on the social media distorting the facts or not disclosing the correct facts of the proceedings. The matter is required to be taken up more seriously when any such attempt is sought to be made by the party to the proceedings to cause prejudice to the proceedings or interfere with the course of administration of justice. Aminul Haque Laskar v. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 292 : AIR 2024 SC 2193
Legal profession has an important role to play in the process. Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court. We are constrained to observe this because of late we notice that pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with no inhibition whatsoever. This is especially so in some family law proceedings, both civil and criminal. Reading some of the averments therein, we are left to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before appending their signatures. These misadventures directly impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice. It is time that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics. (Para 46) K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757
Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession. A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service,” and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in Section 2 (42) of the CP Act 2019. A complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019. (Para 42) Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K.Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 372 : AIR 2024 SC 2659 : (2024) 8 SCC 430
Legal professionals are not immune from prosecution for criminal misdeeds. Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722 : AIR 2024 SC 4785
Negligence on the part of the petitioners' advocate does not absolve them of their responsibility to be vigilant about their legal proceedings. Litigants must act diligently and cannot entirely shift the blame to their counsel. Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 912
Notary's omission to make entry in notarial register misconduct. Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722 : AIR 2024 SC 4785
Social capital and networks play an important role in legal career; lawyers from marginalised sections face difficulties. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 : AIR 2024 SC 5338
Strict compliance with online appearance marking protocols for advocates - Certain respondents were found absent both in person and online, despite having marked his presence through the online portal. The Court criticized this practice, emphasizing that marking presence without actual participation undermines the integrity of proceedings. The Court referenced a Supreme Court Registry circular dated 30th December 2022, which allows online presence marking only for advocates genuinely participating in hearings. To uphold procedural sanctity, the Court ordered that only advocates who are present in person or through video conferencing should be marked as attending. The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Advocates-on-Record Association were requested to ensure compliance and inform their members of this directive. Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 645
Supreme Court allows all final year law students to appear in the All India Bar Exam 2024. Nilay Rai v. Bar Council of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 734
Supreme Court urges advocates not to file baseless petitions, flags outrageous averments in family law cases. K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757
Supreme Court deprecates practice of litigant engaging new lawyer to reargue case after court expressed dissatisfaction on merits. Pintu Madanmohan Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 850
Supreme Court directs minimum 1/3rd women's reservation in Supreme Court Bar Association posts from 2024 elections. Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 340
Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out a probe into a case where the petitioner denied filing any special leave petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him. Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722 : AIR 2024 SC 4785
When the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness is being recorded, the presence of the Advocate for the accused is required, as the advocate has a right to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness. The report of trial court records that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded in the presence of the appellants, but their Advocate was not present as they had not engaged any Advocate. Held, after finding that the appellants-accused had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants accused so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the appellants-accused. Recording of evidence in this fashion is not justified even if the High Court had fixed a time-bound schedule for disposal of the case. The trial court could have always sought an extension of time from the High Court. (Para 5 & 6) Ekene Godwin v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 261
When reasons aren't recorded to appoint a junior officer as judge advocate, court martial proceedings stand invalidated. Union of India v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 677 : AIR 2024 SC 4427