SOON, NORMS FOR LEGAL PROFESSION TO COME UNDER LENS
Apex court upset over BCI’s lapses in acting against erring advocates
The Supreme Court has asked the law commission to examine all relevant aspects relating to the regulation of the legal profession in India. Peeved at the failure of Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils to act against advocates committing professional misconduct, the Supreme Court has asked the Law Commission to examine all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in India. A three-judge bench headed by Justice AR Dave said: “There appears to be an urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanisms for the legal profession and other incidental issues, in consultation with all concerned.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has asked the law commission to examine all relevant aspects relating to the regulation of the legal profession in India.
Peeved at the failure of Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils to act against advocates committing professional misconduct, the Supreme Court has asked the law commission to examine all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in India.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice AR Dave said: “There appears to be an urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanisms for the legal profession and other incidental issues, in consultation with all concerned.”
India has close to 1.2 million lawyers whose professional conduct is regulated by the BCI and the state bar councils. BCI also regulates the legal education in the country being pursued by almost half a million students. It is also tasked with conducting the All India Bar Examination for fresh law graduates – mandatory for them to be eligible to practice law.
Of late, the BCI has been embroiled in many controversies, with its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra himself admitting that over 30% of lawyers had fake degrees.
“The legal profession being the most important component of the justice delivery system, it must continue to perform its significant role and regulatory mechanism and should not be seen to be wanting in taking prompt action against any malpractice,” the SC said on Tuesday.
The top court ruled that an advocate convicted of contempt of court could not appear before courts.
Upholding an Allahabad High Court order convicting advocate Mahipal Singh Rana of contempt of court, the bench debarred him from practice for two years.
As a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct, it ordered: “The licence of the appellant (Rana) will stand suspended for a further period of five years. He will also remain debarred from appearing in any court in District Etah even after five years unless he purges himself of contempt.”
The HC had on December 2, 2005, found Rana guilty of criminal contempt for intimidating and threatening a senior civil judge in Etah, Uttar Pradesh on April 16, 2003 and May 13, 2003 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of two months with a fine of `2,000. When he defaulted on payment of the fine, he was ordered to undergo further imprisonment of two weeks.
The SC, however, set aside the sentence for imprisonment in view of Rana’s age and also because he had been disqualified from appearing before the courts.
The fact that Rana refused to tender an apology for his conduct and that he did not show any remorse and justified himself again and again, showed he had no regards for the majesty of law, the bench noted.
The HC directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to initiate “appropriate proceedings” against Rana for professional misconduct. But the bar council sat on the matter for over 10 years.
There appears to be an urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanisms for the legal profession and other incidental issues, in consultation with all concerned
THREE-JUDGE BENCH OF SUPREME COURT