The Kerala High Court has taken serious exception to Advocate Mathews Nedumpura’s act of recording and circulating court proceedings via WhatsApp, stating that it prima facie amounts to contempt of court.

Court ruled that lawyers do not have right to record proceedings and cited the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, which explicitly prohibit such actions.

The court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further consideration.

Advocate argued that transparency in judicial proceedings justified his actions, it is his 'right' to record the proceedings of this Court, but the court dismissed this claim, emphasizing that such conduct interferes with the administration of justice.

The Kerala High Court ruled that a private person cannot appear on behalf of another solely based on a power of attorney without prior permission of the court under Section 32 of the Advocates Act.

The petitioner sought representation through a power of attorney holder. The court relied on Supreme Court rulings in T.C. Mathai & Another v. District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma & Anr., which state that only enrolled advocates have the right to represent others without permission. 

As a result, the court rejected his request and dismissed the plea, reaffirming that power of attorney holders cannot automatically act as legal representatives in court.

The SC Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has launched a Help Desk to assist Advocates-on-Record (AORs) handle Supreme Court cases.

This Help Desk is meant to assist AORs with important legal procedures, such as filing cases, meeting deadlines, and following court rules. This initiative was introduced after receiving valuable suggestions from Supreme Court Judges.

The Help Desk is managed by experienced AORs who can guide new and existing members.

The desk is open twice a month on the first and third Saturdays from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM) at the SCAORA office and is also available via phone and email.

SCAORA encourages all AORs to use this support system to strengthen their practice.

The Orissa High Court ruled that an advocate’s practice experience cannot be counted before passing the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).

In this matter, the court held that a lawyer who enrolled in 2013 but cleared AIBE in 2021 could only claim three years of practice. 

Since the Khordha District Bar Association’s by-laws required ten years of practice for the treasurer post, the court invalidated his nomination and directed the Election Officer to disqualify him.

It stated that only post-AIBE experience counts for eligibility in bar association elections.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea challenging the Gujarat High Court interim order which permitted two law graduates from an unrecognized college to appear for the civil judge examination. 

Recently, the Gujarat High Court directed the State Bar Council to grant provisional practice certificates to the applicants so that they could participate in the examination.

The Gujarat Court relied on Saiyed Mahammadjuber Yunusbhai & Others v. Bar Council of Gujarat & Others, wherein the Court allowed similarly placed law graduates to appear in the All India Bar Exam, 2024, and the Bar Council of Gujarat issued the provisional certificates of practice.

The hearing has been scheduled for March 4.

The Supreme Court held that an advocate should not be held criminally liable for failing to verify the genuineness of a power of attorney provided by a litigant.

The Court noted that advocates are not expected to verify such documents in the ordinary course of their work. The case involved a tenancy dispute where a fabricated power of attorney was allegedly used.

However, since the vakalatnama and petition were signed by the power of attorney holder, the advocate was discharged from charges of cheating and forgery.

The Court clarified that verifying a power of attorney's genuineness is not an advocate's duty.

The Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) has issued a circular exempting advocates from wearing black coats from March 1st to June 30th every year due to rising temperatures.

Previously, this exemption was applicable only for May and June, but BCMG has now extended it from March 1st onwards. The circular, issued on February 27, officially revises the definition of summer months in dress rules.

Advocates can now avoid wearing black coats/jackets during these months, ensuring comfort while maintaining professional attire.

The Supreme Court will hear a case on reconsidering two judgments that govern the process of granting the Senior Advocate title to lawyers.

The Court has issued notices to all High Courts and relevant parties, seeking their responses and suggestions. 

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising has argued that if the judgments are to be reconsidered, it should be done by a larger bench, and the Court has allowed her to present her views.

The case raises concerns about whether the current system ensures only deserving candidates receive the designation and if it fairly evaluates lawyers, especially those from trial courts.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed petitioners to approach the State Bar Council regarding a resolution by the District Bar Association, which set a five-day work week and made Saturdays a no-work day.

The petitioners argued that this violates a Supreme Court ruling in District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya & others, stating that boycotting courts by advocates was illegal and going on strike was also not protected under Article 19(1)(a).

The bench, without entering into the merits of the petition, granted petitioners 30 days to file representation with the Bar Council, which must decide the matter within 60 days. 

The Supreme Court for one more time questioned how Advocate on Record can authorise other Non-AOR Advocates, to appear on cases on their behalf while hearing a miscellaneous application. 

Bench questions the significance of the AOR Exam clarifying if an AOR needs to authorise another advocate, he can only transfer authority to another AOR and not anybody, stating the same questions raised last week. 

The Bench termed it to be the need of the hour to have a uniform practice for all the benches for making appearances.

The Supreme Court, while hearing matters taken under Suo Moto, emphasized that an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) is wholly responsible to the court, even if they did not draft the submissions but filed the same in the Court. 

An AOR must verify facts in petitions or counter-affidavits received from other advocates and cannot shift blame to the instructing lawyer or client. They must review all documents, ensure relevant annexures, and verify legal findings with caution

An AOR is answerable to the court since he has a unique position under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. 

The Supreme Court heard a plea challenging the Rs. 3,500 AIBE fee, arguing it violates the Gaurav Kumar v. UOI (2024) judgment, which capped enrolment fees under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 

The court directed the petitioner to first file a representation before the Bar Council of India (BCI). Justice Pardiwala remarked that BCI requires funds to function. 

The Court clarified that if BCI does not respond or rejects the plea, the petitioner may approach the Court again.  The plea invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and Section 24(1)(f) of the Act.

Read here BCI's plea to hike enrollment fees.

Read here Telangana High Court petition on the same issue.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has strongly opposed the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, arguing that several provisions threaten its autonomy and independence. 

Key concerns include the government's power to nominate members to BCI, control over foreign law firms, and binding directions from the Central Government. 

The bill also criminalises lawyer strikes, alters enrollment fee structures, weakens advocate protections, and expands legal practitioner definitions, potentially creating regulatory loopholes. 

BCI warns of nationwide protests and legal challenges if these provisions remain unchanged, urging amendments to uphold the self-regulation of the legal profession.

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the police and civil administration to ensure "unhindered" access for lawyers to the court premises due to the Severe traffic Jam in Prayagraj due to the MahaKumbh. 

Several cases in the Allahabad High Court had to be adjourned during the past few weeks due to the traffic restrictions in Prayagraj. 

The High Court’s observation comes as the Uttar Pradesh government has declared Prayagraj a ‘No vehicle zone’ for two days.

The court emphasized maintaining smooth access for legal professionals to uphold justice.

The Supreme Court urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) to convene a stakeholder meeting to address concerns over the mandatory one-year teaching experience for recognising 1-year LL.M. degrees, whether from India or abroad. 

The issue arose from BCI's 2021 notification, which imposed new restrictions despite reinstating the 1-year LL.M.

Two petitions were filed before the Court challenging inter-alia BCI's decision to scrap the 1-year LL.M. programme. Petitioners, including a law student and the Consortium of NLUs, argued that BCI exceeded its authority under the Advocates Act. 

The Court also allowed amendments to challenge a 2024 BCI circular restricting further studies for foreign LL.M. holders. 

If unresolved, the Court will decide the matter on merits.