The Bar Council of Telangana has increased the Vakalat Welfare Stamp fee from ₹100 to ₹250, drawing criticism from legal professionals.

The 150% hike raises concerns about transparency, especially as the Council received ₹100 crore from the state government in 2022, but has not disclosed how those funds were spent.

The increase affects clients and junior advocates, potentially impacting access to justice, and has led to concerns among legal professionals about the justification for the fee increase.

The legal framework governing such decisions is found in The Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Sections 7 and 8, which empower Bar Councils to regulate fees and welfare funds for advocates within their jurisdiction.

The District Bar Association of Gurgaon has implemented a dress code prohibiting non-advocates, such as clerks, touts, litigants, and members of the general public, from wearing white shirts and black pants inside court premises.

This attire, resembling advocates’ clothing, often leads to confusion, misidentification, and disruptions in legal proceedings.

The rule, passed on June 5, aims to preserve the decorum of the legal system and prevent unauthorized individuals from posing as lawyers.

The Bar Association emphasized that only enrolled advocates and recognized law interns are permitted to wear the standard advocate dress code within courtrooms.

The Delhi District Courts will witness a complete halt in judicial work on Monday, June 9, as lawyers protest the relocation of all Digital Courts to the Rouse Avenue Court Complex.

Despite the Delhi High Court’s recent inauguration of 34 Digital Courts under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, aimed at easing cheque bounce case pendency, lawyers raised concerns about accessibility and fairness.

Advocates have expressed strong objections, citing issues of accessibility and procedural fairness. The Coordination Committee of Bar Associations said the centralisation has caused unrest among lawyers.

The next hearing on the matter is awaited.

The Delhi High Court imposed a ₹50,000 fine on a lawyer and his client for filing a petition without the client’s signature

The case involved a complaint against illegal construction, but the petition was signed only by the advocate, Farhad Alam. The Court noted that even the contact details in the complaint matched those of the lawyer, not the client.

Justice Mini Pushkarna termed this a misuse of the court process and emphasized that such actions undermine the legal system. 

The petition was dismissed, and the fine is to be paid to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust by July 21.

The Bar Council of Kerala has issued a show cause notice to newly enrolled advocate Mohammed Fayiz over an enrolment video shared on social media that featured the official vehicle of a High Court judge, considering it potential misconduct under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The video, shared on social media, began with visuals of the judge’s car, raising concerns about propriety and professional ethics.

Fayiz has been given 15 days to respond. Disciplinary action may follow if the Council finds the conduct violates professional standards.

The Delhi High Court's full bench, comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh, Navin Chawla, and C Hari Shankar, closed a longstanding petition concerning the conduct of elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and various district bar associations. 

The court acknowledged the successful completion of elections on March 21, 2025, with the exception of the Saket and Shahdara Bar Associations, whose elections were postponed and later conducted on May 24.  

The bench expressed appreciation for the Election Committees, Delhi Police, and Delhi University, the pro bono contributions of retired Justices RK Gauba and Talwant Singh, who chaired the respective election panels.

The Court found no further orders were required. 

On June 3, 2025, the Uttar Pradesh government appointed 12 lawyers as Additional Advocates General (AAGs) to represent the state in cases before the Supreme Court of India.  

The appointees include two senior advocates - Amit Saxena and Anoop Trivedi, and one woman advocate, Jyotsna Pal, reflecting a diverse selection from both the Allahabad and Lucknow benches.

Other appointees are Durg Vijay Singh, Mahendra Narayan Singh, Rahul Agarwal, Sanjeev Singh, Kartikey Saran, Anuj Kudesia, Sudeep Kumar, Pritish Kumar, and Surya Mani Singh Royekvar. 

This move aims to strengthen the state's legal representation at the apex court.

A group of 13 law researchers employed on a contractual basis with the Delhi High Court between 2018 and 2025 has filed a plea seeking an increase in their monthly remuneration from ₹65,000 to ₹80,000, effective from October 1, 2022, along with arrears and 18% annual interest.  

They allege that despite the Chief Justice's approval of the hike on August 16, 2023, the order remains unimplemented due to inaction by the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor.  

Justice Ajay Digpaul recused himself from hearing the case on May 29 due to a family connection. The matter will now be heard on July 2, 2025.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal of Advocate Sandeep Chandra, husband of Justice Sangeeta Chandra, from his post as Standing Counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government.  

The petitioner alleged that Advocate Chandra's position violated Bar Council of India rules due to his wife's judicial role. However, the court found no evidence of misconduct or that he exploited his relationship for professional gain. 

The court noted that the Bar Council rules prohibit appearing before a court where a relative is a presiding judge, not the entire High Court.  

The court also criticized the petitioner's tone, calling it inappropriate, and advised the petitioner to introspect before making such allegations.

The Supreme Court has said that a notice doesn’t need to be titled “legal notice” to be valid.

What matters is whether the notice clearly explains the issue, mentions the breach or default, warns of possible legal action, and is not misleading.

The case involved UPSIDC canceling land allotment due to payment default. The allottee claimed only one of the three notices was valid since it was formally titled. However, the Court held that all three communications met the legal requirements.

Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh ruled that substance is more important than the label in legal notices.

The Supreme Court has held that there was no wrongdoing in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) presidential election, only a “bona fide counting error.”

Senior advocate Adish Aggarwala, who had raised concerns about the election process, withdrew his complaint after the Court’s observation.

The bench clarified that the error in vote counting was neither intentional nor malicious. 

The judges emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity of the Bar and resolved the matter amicably. The Court’s statement comes after a review of the election records and submissions from both sides.

The Delhi High Court stayed the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to remove advocate Shreenath Tripathi as the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council's representative.

Justice Sachin Datta observed that the BCI's resolution appeared to have been passed without following the prescribed procedure, including issuing a show cause notice and conducting an inquiry.

Tripathi, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, contended that his removal was arbitrary and politically motivated, based on an invalid no-confidence motion by the UP Bar Council.

The court has sought a detailed reply from the BCI and scheduled the next hearing for September 8, 2025.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) decision to suspend a lawyer from legal practice for seven years.

The lawyer was accused of crashing his car into a hotel owned by the complainant. Initially, the BCI had imposed a one-year suspension, which was later extended to seven years after the complainant sought a review.

The Court found no fault in the extended suspension, stating that disciplinary action must reflect proportionality and uphold the legal profession's dignity.

The court observed that lawyers are expected to maintain high standards of conduct to preserve public trust.

The Kerala High Court has allowed a lawyer’s plea for payment of over ₹12 lakh in pending legal fees from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

The Court found NCTE’s refusal to pay “blameworthy” and imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the agency.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. ruled that advocates can seek unpaid fees through writ petitions if no complex factual disputes exist. The case involved fees for 590 cases handled by the petitioner’s late father since 2004.

The Court ordered NCTE to pay the dues within two months and said non-payment undermines the dignity of the legal profession.