The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has expressed its strong disapproval of the Bahraich District Bar Association’s resolution that the Bar has passed a mandate in its general body meeting that in any matter, in which an advocate is involved, no other advocate will appear on behalf of the accused person and will not file his vakalatnama on his behalf.

A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Virendra Kumar and Others.

By means of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the non bailable warrant dated 29.02.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 & 452 IPC, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich.

The opposite party no 2 has filed an F.I.R in Police Station Fakarpur, District Bahraich on 03.01.2024 against the applicants, stating that he is an advocate practicing in Civil Court, Bahraich. The accused persons have illegally taken into possession some land forming a part of a lane and a sehan on 28.12.2023 and when the complainant and his father objected to it, the accused persons opposed them, entered their house, beat them and damaged some household goods.

The applicant no 2 has filed a Suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaiserganj, Bahraich against four persons, including the complainant, his father, mother and brother, claiming a perpetual injunction.

From the aforesaid facts, there appears to be a civil dispute between the parties, the Court observed.

The Court noted that,

A letter dated 14.02.2024 given by the complainant-advocate to the President and General Secretary of District Bar Association, Bahraich has been annexed with the application, wherein he has written that some members of the District Bar Association are helping the accused persons and they want to file an application for their release on bail. The opposite party no 2 has stated in the aforesaid letter that District Bar Association, Bahraich has passed a mandate in its general body meeting that in any matter, in which an advocate is involved, no other advocate will appear on behalf of the accused person and will not file his vakalatnama on his behalf. He has complained to the President / General Secretary of the District Bar Association, Bahraich to take action against Babu Ram Tiwari Advocate, who had accepted the case of the applicants and has also requested that the Bar Association should ensure that no Advocate appears on behalf of the accused persons in the case instituted by the complainant Advocate against them.

The aforesaid conduct of the opposite party no 2, who is a practising advocate and that of the District Bar Association, is very disturbing. The profession of Advocacy has long been considered as a noble profession and it is expected that Advocates shall conduct themselves in a noble manner.

Bar Council of India has framed Bar Council of India Rules, and Part VI thereof contains “Rules Governing Advocats”. Chapter II contained in Part VI contains rules regulating “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette”, which have been framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act read with the Proviso thereto. Section II of the Chapter II contains Rules regarding duties of Advocates towards their clients.

The Court further observed that,

The act of the complainant Advocate in putting pressure on Babu Ram Tiwari, who has been engaged by the applicants to seek their release on bail, and of the District Bar Association in passing a mandate restraining Advocates in general from appearing in any matter against any Advocate, is not commensurate with the noble conduct expected from any Advocate, besides being violative of the provisions contained in the referred Rules 11 and 15.

The opposite party no 2 himself has stated in his letter dated 14.02.2024, that the applicants are making efforts to file a bail application, from which it appears that the applicants are not trying to abscond from the process of law and it is the complainant himself and the members and office bearers of District Bar Association, Bahraich, who are creating hindrance and who are putting undue obstacles against the applicants taking the recourse of law.

The aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case warrant a deeper scrutiny by the Court.

The Court granted two weeks time to file Counter affidavit for the respondents.

The Court issued notice to the President and General Secretary of the District Bar Association, Bahraich to place their version regarding the claim of the complainant that a resolution has been passed by the District Bar Association that no advocate would appear in a case on behalf of the accused persons in which some advocate are involved from the other side.

“Till the next date of listing, as an interim measure, it is provided that the non-bailable warrant dated 29.02.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 & 452 IPC, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, shall remain stayed”, the Court ordered.

The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on May 06, 2024.

The Delhi High Court has sternly directed all district bar associations to file their suggestions in the form of an affidavit or report by October 29 on the issue of maintaining safety and security at all court complexes in the capital.

The division bench led by Chief Justice D.N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh had taken a suo motu cognizance in wake of the shocking shootout that occurred inside the Rohini Court Complex on September 24, 2021, which left three people dead and a woman lawyer injured.

The Bench stated, “If anybody wants to file any suggestions, they are always welcome, but the same shall be filed on or before October 29, 2021,” while observing that no further time beyond October 29 shall be granted to any stakeholder to file their suggestions.

Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General, informed the Delhi High Court that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Court, substantive steps have been taken by the Delhi Police for maintaining safety at all court complexes in the national capital.

He further stated that a standing order was issued by the Delhi Police Commissioner for managing security effectively at all court complexes in Delhi, which inter alia includes covering physical checking points in all courts, repairing non-operating scanners, deploying sufficient manpower with paramilitary support, inspector-in-charge has been placed for each court exclusively.

“About 85 door metal detectors and 125 hand-held detectors have been supplied in all courts, and a tender has been floated for procuring x-ray scanner machines that could be installed in the court complexes,” Sharma added further.

So far, Delhi Police Commissioner, the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Bar Council of Delhi and Saket Bar Association have filed their respective reports with suggestions in aid of formulating measures for maintaining safety and security at all court complexes in the capital.

A related petition filed by practising Advocate Deepa Joseph through Advocates Robin Raju and Blessan Mathews,  also enumerates a list of “valuable suggestions” which could be implemented for ensuring safety and security of the District Courts in Delhi, which includes-

a) A strict instruction to all the police personnel deployed at court entrances to ensure mandatory checking of the ID Cards of each and every lawyer who enters the court premises.

b) To make the level of security and frisking of lawyers at district court complexes at par with the Delhi High Court and the Apex Court.

c) To ponder over the decision on installation of biometric punching device at the entrance gates of all the Courts.

d) To take strict disciplinary action against those officers who do not implement the aforesaid direction with utmost diligence and seriousness.

e) A direction to the Bar Council of Delhi to issue an advisory to ask their respective members to cooperate with police personnel deployed at the entrance of court complexes.

The Bench had previously opined that there is a need for an effective deployment of sufficient number of police personnel at all court complexes in Delhi. In addition, the Bench stated that there is a need for installation of more number of CCTV camera at all strategic points, along with a fool-proof entry system with installation of hi-tech metal detectors and baggage scanners at all the courts in Delhi, including the High Court.

The matter will next be taken up on November 8.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has told the Supreme Court on Friday that it will frame rules to punish those lawyers who indulge in strikes, provoke lawyers through social media to abstain from work and refuse to attend court proceedings.

A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah was informed by senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, who is the BCI chairman, that they have convened a meeting of all State Bar Associations on September 4. The Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed by District Bar Association, Dehradun against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court holding strikes/ boycott of courts by advocates to be illegal.

The bench recorded Mishra’s submission, adding that it appreciates BCI’s action. The apex court also posted the matter for further hearing in the third week of September at the request of the chairman of the BCI. At the outset, Mishra apologized for not coming up with suggestions earlier in compliance with the court’s order last year, due to the onset of the pandemic.

Earlier, the Court had said that boycotting courts every Saturday in Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar districts of Uttarakhand was not justified and it amounted to contempt of court. Noting that the lawyers were on strike for three to four days during a month, the top court observed that if the lawyers had worked during those days, it would have helped in getting speedy justice.

Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses plea of man accused of criminal breach of trust among other charges as withdrawn

The Supreme Court had on July 26 referred to its February 28, 2020 judgment, which had directed the BCI and the state bar council to suggest measures to stop the lawyers’ strike and their boycott of court proceedings. The top court had asked the BCI president to help on the issue. Taking suo motu cognizance of the issue on February 28,2020, the Apex Court had emphasized that at a time when the judiciary is facing serious problems of pendency and delay in disposal of cases, how can the institution as a whole afford four-day strikes in a month. The judgment had expressed concern over the lawyers’ strike.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the District Judge, Anuppur to nominate one of the Counsels for undertaking the exercise of proceedings of elections of the District Bar Association, Anuppur.

The Jabalpur Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla on August 16, having regard to the fact that the election of the District Bar Association has become long overdue and considering the rivalry among the different groups of advocates in the District, directed the District Judge, Anuppur to nominate one of the counsel, who is fairly senior in practice and commands respect among all members of the Bar, to act as an Election Officer and also nominate in consultation with him two Advocates, as his assistants, in helping for undertaking the exercise of the proceedings of elections.

The Bench passed the verdict on a petition filed by Durgesh Kumar Pandey (Advocate) – President of the erstwhile Bar Association of Anuppur, challenging the order dated June 17, 2021, by which the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh appointed an ad hoc committee to deal with the affairs of the State Bar Council.

The State Bar Council had to appoint the Adhoc Committee because the term of the elected body of the Bar Association had come to an end one-and-a-half years back, in January, 2020.

On July 20, the High Court, upon hearing the Counsel for the parties, approved the election programme proposed by the Bar Council on behalf of the Adhoc Committee. In the order however, it came to be mentioned inadvertently that the Election Officer appointed by the District Bar Association, Anuppur shall notify the election programme.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh HC disposes of PIL seeking inquiry into illegal construction in school

Subsequently, a review petition was filed on behalf of the State Bar Council that the proposed programme was submitted by the State bar Council and not by the State Bar Association and that as a result of confusion arising out of the situation, apart from the Election Officer appointed by the Adhoc Committee of the Bar Association, the outgoing body of the District Bar Association also appointed another Election Officer and that both of them were undertaking parallel proceedings for holding of the election.

Faced with the position, the High Court by order dated 10.08.2021 allowed the review petition and recalled the aforesaid order with a direction that the process of election as proposed by State Bar Council and as detailed out in the order dated 20.07.2021, shall stand cancelled and no proceedings shall be conducted by the Election Officer appointed by the outgoing body of the District Bar Association as well.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court fines petitioner Rs 50,000 for wasting precious time of court

The Jabalpur Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla on August 16, having regard to the fact that the election of the District Bar Association has become long overdue and considering the rivalry amongst the different groups of advocates in the District, directed the District Judge, Anuppur to nominate one of the counsel, who is fairly senior in practice and commands respect amongst all the members of the Bar, to act as an Election Officer and also nominate in consultation with him two Advocates, as his assistants in helping for undertaking the exercise of the proceedings of elections.

“The Election Officer shall notify the program of election within a week of his appointment, for publication of the provisional voter list inviting objections, thereafter finalizing the voter list after deciding objections, the date of issuance of the nomination form, date of scrutiny of nomination form, date of withdrawal of the nomination form, date of publication of the final list of the candidates for various posts, date of holding of election, if required, on respective posts and the date of counting of votes and declaration of result,”

-the Court order while disposing the Petition.

The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday directed the State Bar Council to decide the appeal of former District Bar Association President, Sidhi before April 10.

The petition has been filed by Munindra Dwivedi, Advocate, challenging the order dated on March 3 2021 passed by the District Bar Association, Sidhi, by which his membership has been terminated from the District Bar Association.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been the President of District Bar Association on four occasions and that he has been expelled from the membership of the Bar Association with a view to deprive him from participating in the election.

Sandeep Singh Baghel, the Counsel appearing on behalf of State Bar Council, Jabalpur submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against this expulsion before the State Bar Council on March 08 2021 and notice has been issued to the District Bar Association. He further informed the Court that State Bar Council shall decide the appeal filed by the the petitioner within a period of one week.

Vikas Mahawar, the Counsel appearing for District Bar Association, Sidhi stated that election of District Bar Association, Sidhi is scheduled to take place on April 7 2021.

The division bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Fahim Anwar with regard to the submission of the Counsels, directed the petitioner and District Bar Association, Sidhi to appear before the appellate authority/State Bar Council at Jabalpur on April 03, 2021 at 11.00 a.m. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal on or before April 10, 2021 in accordance with law.

Read Also: MP High Court asks revenue officials to survey, follow due process in land compensation case

It was clarified by the Court that if the petitioner succeeds in appeal, the District Bar Association may revise the programme of election so as to give opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the election process. The Court further directed that the date of election be postponed from April 07 to 15.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the order to suspend the advocacy licence of Advocate Vijay B Verma, the former head of the District Bar Association. 

The Bench of Justice Alka Sarin ruled that the licence of Vijay B Verma on behalf of the Bar Council was suspended against the rules. Therefore, terming it as flawed, it was cancelled on the basis of technical reasons.

However, the Bar Council has been permitted to initiate disciplinary action against Verma as per the rules. 

“There is no provision in the 1961 Act or the BCI Rules which empowers the State Bar Council (respondent) to pass an order of punishment, even in the interim, against an advocate. Section 35(3) of the 1961 Act gives the power of reprimanding, suspending from practice or removing the name of an Advocate from the State Roll only to the disciplinary committee. Even the BCI Rules do not bestow any such power on the State Bar Council (respondent),” observed the high court.

The licence of Vijay B Verma was suspended for three months by the Bar Council over indecent remarks on internet media. Vijay B Verma approached the high court against the decision of the council.

Due to this, the high court passed an interim order on September 1, barring the Bar Council’s disciplinary committee from taking further action on Verma.

Read Also: Rajasthan High Court accepts Asaram’s plea for early hearing; date set for late January