The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana sought details from the High Court regarding the recent designation of 76 lawyers as Senior Advocates on October 20, following multiple complaints alleging nepotism and lack of transparency.

In a resolution passed on October 23, the Council said several advocates claimed that deserving candidates were overlooked while others were favoured, and requested the High Court to share information on the selection procedure, rules applied, marking system, and criteria for SC, ST, and women candidates.

The Council stated that under Section 6(d) of the Advocates Act,  the Bar Council is duty-bound to safeguard advocates’ rights and ensure fairness in the selection process.

The Supreme Court has issued a notice on a writ petition seeking to allow the presence of an accused's lawyer during interrogation by the police or other investigative agencies.

It was argued that there is a need for the greater good of the public that a lawyer be present during interrogation and tell the person whether or not a particular question is incriminatory.

It was also emphasised that the selective permission to access a counsel by the detainee is in gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20(3), 21, 22 of the Constitution and increases the risk of custodial violence and death.

[Shaffi Mather v. Union of India]

The Delhi High Court quashed a complaint by the NDMC against Advocate B.K. Sood for using his basement as a lawyer’s office, holding that running a legal practice does not amount to a “commercial activity.”

The Court cited Supreme Court precedents and emphasised that the legal profession is distinct from trade or commerce. It noted no violation of the Master Development Plan 2001 or Delhi Building Bye‑Laws, 1983, which allow basement offices for professionals under specifications.

The Court further held that continuation of the complaint, pending for over two decades, would amount to abuse of process and dismissed all proceedings.

[B K Sood Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notices to the State Government, State Bar Council, and Bar Council of India on a PIL seeking a welfare scheme for advocates with 35–40 years of practice.

The plea noted that many senior lawyers face financial hardship and cited the Bihar State Bar Council Advocates’ Welfare Scheme (Pension and Family Pension) Rules, 2012, which provide pension benefits to eligible advocates.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf directed the State Bar Council to assess the feasibility of a similar scheme and submit a report.

The matter, now before the Jabalpur Bench, is listed for November 12, 2025.

[Rajendra Shrivastava v Chief Secretary, MP Government]

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by the Nilgiris District Bar Association challenging a Madras High Court order directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to recognise the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris as a separate Bar Association.

The petitioner argued that a separate association for women lawyers in the same district was unnecessary.

The High Court had held that the Bar Council’s view restricting recognition to one association per district was contrary to Rule 3(4) of the Welfare Fund Rules, which permits multiple associations.

The matter will be heard next in four weeks.

[Nilgiris District Bar Association v Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris & Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State Bar Council cannot charge a fee for transferring the enrollment of an advocate to Madhya Pradesh from another state.

The petitioner had challenged a demand of ₹15,000 made by the Bar Council for the transfer. Earlier, the Court had passed an interim order directing the Bar Council to register the advocate without any fee.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval, noting that the Advocates Act contains no provision permitting such a charge. The Court reiterated that enrollment transfers must be completed free of cost.

[Rohit Pathak v The Bar Council of India and Others]

The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by lawyers challenging the 2019 sealing of their basement office in Greater Kailash-I by the Court-appointed Monitoring Committee.

The petitioners argued that the premises were lawfully purchased for professional use and that the sealing violated their right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The South Delhi Municipal Corporation had sealed the office following complaints of illegal construction and misuse of property.

The Court has directed Amicus Curiae Anita Shenoy to submit a report before the next hearing on October 27, 2025.

[M.C. Mehta v Union of India & Others]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cautioned advocates against using mobile phones mid-hearing to search for answers via AI or Google. Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that such conduct disrupts proceedings and reflects a lack of preparation. 

In the case before him, counsel resorted to online searches instead of relying on prior case preparation, prompting the judge to seize the device temporarily.

The Court directed the Bar Association to circulate the order among members, warning that repeated use of phones to “update themselves” during hearings could invite harsher sanctions.

The Court remarked that this was not the first time such conduct had been noticed, and that it had become a recurring problem. 

The Kerala High Court has received a writ petition challenging the Bar Council of India's decision to increase the nomination fee for contesting in the State Bar Council elections by 2400%.

Petitioner Advocate Rajesh Vijayan termed the hike arbitrary, illegal, and unreasonable. The circular came shortly after the Supreme Court directed that State Bar Council elections be completed by January 31, 2026.

While the Bar Council justified the increase, citing reduced enrollment fee collections, the petitioner argued that financial constraints cannot legally justify such a disproportionate fee hike.

[Adv Rajesh Vijayan v Bar Council of India and Anr.]

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with Telangana's rule barring advocates from other states from applying for district judge positions in the state judicial service.

The court upheld the state's eligibility criteria requiring candidates to be enrolled with the Telangana State Bar Council, noting that states have the autonomy to prescribe reasonable qualifications for judicial appointments. 

The Court clarified that the order is strictly confined to the facts and circumstances of the appeals and petitions and may not be treated as a precedent for future cases.

[Usha Kiran Kshatri and others v The State of Telangana]

The Supreme Court has ruled that an advocate who merely attests an affidavit cannot be held responsible for the veracity of its contents, dismissing a malicious complaint filed against a lawyer.

The bench emphasised that the advocate's role is limited to verifying the identity of the deponent and not the factual accuracy of the statements made.

The Court further found that the BCMG's decision to register and pursue the complaint amounted to an “illegal” and “perverse” exercise, resulting in malicious prosecution of the advocate.

It imposed ₹50,000 each on the complainant and the BCMG, directing the total cost of ₹1 lakh to be paid to the advocate within four weeks.

[Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and others]

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), has called on Chief Justice BR Gavai for urgent reforms in judicial appointments, highlighting structural flaws in the collegium system.

His letter stresses the need for a transparent, equitable framework replacing the current collegium mechanism, which marginalises Supreme Court Bar talent and lacks diversity.

The SCBA proposed creating an independent secretariat, adopting application-based selection, publishing clear eligibility criteria, and introducing accountability mechanisms.

The letter cited the 2016 judgment in Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, emphasising that judicial elevations must be guided by merit, integrity, and constitutional principles.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State Bar Council to provisionally register advocate Rohit Pathak without charging any fee, pending final orders.

Pathak sought transfer of his enrolment from the Bar Council of Delhi to Madhya Pradesh, but the State Bar Council demanded an exorbitant ₹15,000 as a fee, which Pathak challenged as illegal under Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The High Court noted that once the Bar Council of India and the Delhi Bar Council approved the transfer, the State Bar Council’s role was limited to registration without additional fees. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 7, 2025.

(Rohit Pathak v Bar Council of India)

The Supreme Court has upheld the Bar Council of India’s three-year suspension of an advocate for professional misconduct after he made baseless and scandalous allegations against complainant Priyanka Bansal.

Calling his conduct obstinate and unethical, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh and directed the Agra Collector to attach his properties for recovery.

It further ruled that the advocate’s license shall not be renewed without the Court’s permission, with a compliance report required after the suspension.

The Court stressed that lawyers must maintain the highest ethical standards and face strict discipline when they fail to do so.

(Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Priyanka Bansal)