The Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Associations of Srinagar and Jammu have announced a complete suspension of court work on April 23, 2025, in protest against the terrorist attack in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley.

Describing the assault as "cowardly and barbaric," both associations condemned the violence that claimed several innocent lives and injured many.

Court proceedings at the High Court and all subordinate courts will be halted, with bar associations expressing solidarity with victims and their families.

Various civil society groups and business bodies in Jammu have also supported the bandh, calling for peace and justice.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Registrar General to place the conduct of Senior Advocate Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah before the full court to decide whether he should continue holding the “Senior Advocate” designation.

This comes after Adv Ruprah, during a hearing in an excise matter, allegedly raised his voice and created a disturbance in court that judges found his behavior inappropriate for someone with senior status. The incident was also recorded on the court’s live stream.

Observing his behavior, the Court barred him from appearing before the Bench until further orders and stated that his designation as a Senior Advocate must be reconsidered.

The Ranchi Bar Association has made it mandatory for clients to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) before changing their lawyer in ongoing civil cases.

A new lawyer can take over only if the previous lawyer provides written consent through an NOC. 

This move aims to promote accountability among lawyers, streamline court proceedings, and address growing complaints about clients switching lawyers without following due process. 

If a lawyer refuses to issue a NOC, the Bar Association’s committee will take immediate action. Repeated violations of this rule may lead to penalties and disciplinary action.

The Allahabad High Court sentenced Lucknow-based Advocate Ashok Pandey to six months in jail for criminal contempt and banned him from practicing on the Allahabad and Lucknow benches for three years. 

The case relates to a 2021 incident where he appeared in court with an unbuttoned shirt and refused to correct his attire. When the court advised him to appear in decent dress, he used abusive language and claimed that the judges were "behaving like goondas".

The Court said his behavior insulted the dignity of the judiciary. Later, he requested leave to appeal under Article 134(A) of the Indian Constitution, which was rejected.

The Chhattisgarh High Court stayed the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2024 Exam until further orders. 

The petitioner, a full-time government employee, challenged a  2006 recruitment rule that requires candidates to be enrolled as advocates. 

She argued that under Bar Council Rule 49, full-time employees cannot enroll as advocates, making her ineligible despite her qualifications. She also contested the CGPSC’s December 2024 exam notification based on this requirement.

The Court noted similar stays by the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts and directed the CGPSC to postpone the exam scheduled for May 18, 2025, until the Supreme Court decides whether having prior practice as a lawyer should be a must for applying.

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take disciplinary action against Advocate Shiv Prakash for falsely claiming his father’s death to seek adjournment. The Court noted that the lawyer’s conduct is "unbecoming of an advocate” and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The false claim was exposed when the State counsel pointed out that Prakash’s Bar records listed his father as already deceased. Upon questioning, Prakash admitted that his father had passed away before he entered the legal profession.

The Court dismissed the related writ petitions concerning adulterated milk, stating no interference was warranted in the impugned orders.

The Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) has filed a PIL challenging the 2025 amendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act via the Kerala Finance Act.

The petition opposes the steep court fee hike ranging from 400% to 9,900% and the introduction of ad valorem fees without an upper limit, calling it unconstitutional and a barrier to justice.

KHCAA also seeks to strike down Section 73A, which exempts the State and its officials from paying court fees, arguing that such selective exemption for the State, the largest litigant, is discriminatory and violates constitutional rights.

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the Bar Council of India (BCI), affirming its authority to inspect law colleges under the Rules of Legal Education.

The Court held that these rules are neither arbitrary nor illegal and do not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Earlier, on March 25, 2025, the Court reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School, which challenged the BCI’s inspection notice, arguing that the council lacked such powers. 

The Court upheld the BCI’s role in ensuring quality legal education. 

The Delhi High Court upheld that retired judges from other states cannot apply for Senior Advocates in Delhi under Rule 9B of High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024.

Vijai Pratap Singh, a retired judge from Uttar Pradesh, challenged Rule 9B, claiming it violated his constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.

The court ruled that evaluating judges from other states was difficult since the Delhi High Court had no direct records or authority over them.

The Court decided that the rule was fair and reasonable, as it clearly distinguished Delhi judges from those from other states. It rejected the petition.

The Bombay High Court reserved its judgment on a petition by the Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School challenging the Bar Council of India's (BCI) inspection notice.

The college argued that under the Advocates Act, 1961, only the university and UGC had the authority to conduct inspections, not BCI.

However, BCI defended its powers, citing Sections 7(h), 7(i), and 49(d) of the Act, which allow it to regulate legal education. Court-appointed expert Dr. Milind Sathe also supported BCI’s authority under the Legal Education Rules, 2008.

After hearing both sides, the court has reserved its decision.

The Supreme Court has directed that 30% of seats in governing councils of district bar associations across Karnataka be reserved for women lawyers.

The order extends a similar directive issued earlier for the Advocates Association Bengaluru (AAB) elections, where the post of Treasurer was reserved for women.

A bench stated that this reservation policy should be implemented in all bar associations in Karnataka, with compliance reports submitted to district judges.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court called for dismantling "old men's clubs" and stressed the legal necessity of ensuring equal representation for women in bar bodies statewide.

The Kerala High Court has recommended mandatory training and mentoring for junior lawyers during their first five years of practice.

Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S urged the Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) to establish a structured training program. 

The Court proposed making training sessions compulsory for membership and introducing a credit-based system for learning from senior lawyers. It observed that while new advocates have legal knowledge, they often lack practical courtroom experience.  

The KHCAA President noted that many juniors do not even continue with a senior for three months, and rely on digital resources. The Court emphasized structured mentorship to uphold professional standards.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan has been elected as the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), securing 2,967 votes and winning by 87 votes. Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri was elected Vice President with 4,515 votes.

Advocate Vikram Singh Panwar won the Secretary post with 4,389 votes, while Advocate Kanika Singh became Treasurer with 4,493 votes.

Advocate Kunal Malhotra secured the Joint Secretary position with 3,381 votes. The election, originally set for October 2024, was postponed multiple times and was finally held on March 21 at the Delhi High Court premises.

The Karnataka High Court stayed Tumakuru District Advocates Association elections after women advocates petitioned for 33% reservation in leadership posts. 

Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked that bar associations should not remain "old boys' clubs" and emphasized the need for gender representation. 

The Association rejected the request, citing a lack of authority and time constraints.

The petitioners argued before the court that it violated constitutional morality. The court extended the stay and noted that similar reservations were upheld in Bengaluru’s Advocates Association by the Supreme Court.

The matter is adjourned till Monday.