Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra urged Delhi lawyers to defer their September 8 strike against the LG’s notification allowing police personnel to depose via video conferencing.

He proposed a joint meeting with BCI and the Bar Council of Delhi, warning that strikes burden litigants and undertrials.

However, the Coordination Committee of Bar Associations rejected the appeal, reaffirming that only the physical presence of police witnesses ensures a fair trial. 

Lawyers argue the September 4 police circular permitting virtual examination of formal witnesses breaches earlier assurances. The indefinite strike will begin as planned, with further intensification if demands remain unmet.

Lawyers in Delhi will resume an indefinite strike from September 8 in all district courts, protesting an “arbitrary and illegal” police circular that allows police witnesses to be examined via video conferencing from police stations.

The Coordination Committee of District Court Bar Associations condemned the circular, stating it contradicts an assurance by the Union Home Minister that such deposition would not occur from police stations.

The Committee calls the move anti-public and a violation of the accused's rights, arguing that categorising witnesses for virtual or physical appearance undermines fair trial principles.

The committee warns that agitation will intensify unless the circular is withdrawn.

Following protests by the Bar in the national capital, Delhi Police clarified that the Courts will examine only formal police witnesses through video conferencing from police stations. 

Courts will continue to examine material police witnesses physically, pending further consultations.

The clarification followed widespread opposition from bar associations against the LG's notification allowing virtual depositions under BNSS 2023. Special Commissioner Devesh Chandra Srivastava issued the order stating this ensures expedited proceedings while maintaining examination sanctity.

The LG had designated 226 police stations for virtual depositions under Section 265(3) of BNSS. Delhi HC will hear a PIL challenging the LG's notification next week.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought responses from the state and central governments on a PIL challenging online advertisements that use celebrity endorsements to promote legal services, arguing such practices violate Bar Council of India rules against soliciting clients.

The petition claims these ads mislead the public and commercialise the legal profession.

The court will examine whether existing regulations adequately address digital advertising ethics and professional conduct for lawyers. The matter is listed next week.

[Prashant Upadhyay v Bar Council of India]

The Madras High Court quashed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry’s refusal to recognise the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris (WLAN).

Justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council exceeded its authority by conducting an unwarranted enquiry and consulting the rival Nilgiris District Bar Association.

Referring to Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1987 and Rule 3(4), the Court clarified that multiple bar associations can exist in one court centre.

It directed BCTNP to grant recognition if WLAN’s application meets statutory requirements within 15 days.

[Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu]

Odisha State Bar Council has ordered lawyers engaged in business, private, or government jobs and not practising in courts to surrender their licences within a month, citing violations of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Advocates may act as sleeping partners in businesses compatible with professional dignity, but must avoid active business roles or salaried employment while practising law.

The Council warns of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against non-compliant lawyers, directing all district bar associations to ensure enforcement.

This aims to uphold full-time commitment and integrity in the legal profession.

Delhi lawyers have suspended their strike after the central government decided to pause its controversial notification requiring accused individuals to make video-recorded statements at police stations instead of courts.

The legal community had protested, arguing the move would increase police coercion and undermine fair trial rights. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has also said that he will hear lawyers' concerns against the government's decision.

Following discussions, the government agreed to reconsider the directive and engage in further consultations with stakeholders.

The strike’s suspension aims to restore normalcy in court operations while discussions continue.

The Bombay High Court ruled that the transfer fee charged by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for relocating an advocate’s enrollment from another State Bar Council violates Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Shyam Chandak held the fee illegal in a plea by lawyer Devendra Nath Tripathi, who was charged ₹15,405 for transferring his enrollment from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra.

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gaurav Kumar and clarified that transfers must occur without fees, quashing the fee mechanism prospectively.

The order does not affect past fee collections.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has highlighted the absence of direct air connectivity to cities like Jabalpur as a significant hurdle for lawyers needing to appear before the Supreme Court or other High Court benches.

The Court noted that poor transport infrastructure delays justice, increases litigation costs, and hampers professional efficiency.

It urged the state and central governments to improve air links, emphasising that accessibility is crucial for the legal fraternity and litigants. The remarks came during a hearing on infrastructure challenges affecting judicial functioning.

The Court listed the matter for further hearing on September 9, 2025.

[Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch v UOI]

The Delhi High Court will hear next week a PIL challenging a notification by Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena declaring all 226 police stations in the capital as “designated places” for recording depositions of police officers through video conferencing.

The petitioner argued that permitting police officials to depose from their own precincts undermines the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court listed the matter for September 3.

Meanwhile, bar associations across Delhi continued their strike against the notification, with lawyers appearing in courts wearing black ribbons.

[Kapil Madan v Union of India]

The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) on Wednesday asked lawyers to wear black ribbons in court to protest Delhi LG VK Saxena’s notification designating all 226 police stations as venues for police officers to depose virtually.

The lawyers’ body said the ribbons should be worn until the August 13 notification is withdrawn. 

The move follows a citywide strike by district bar associations since August 21. 

A PIL challenging the notification is also pending before the High Court. The bar has termed the order detrimental to fair trial rights under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A PIL has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging a notification by LG VK Saxena declaring all police stations as designated places for recording police officials’ evidence via video conferencing. 

Filed by Advocate Kapil Madan through Advocates Gurmukh Singh Arora and Ayushi Bisht, the plea argues the move violates Article 21 by undermining fair trial rights.

It contends that depositions from police stations risk coaching, selective access to records, departmental influence, and compromise of evidence integrity.

The petition cites Section 308 BNSS, 2023, which mandates evidence be recorded in court under judicial supervision in the accused’s presence.

[Kapil Madan v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors]

The Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana has invited advocates, affected persons, and the public to submit complaints or evidence via email or WhatsApp regarding bench hunting or forum shopping.

The move follows its Privilege Committee’s suo motu inquiry into alleged manipulation of judicial bench allocations in the high-profile Roop Bansal case.

Sixteen lawyers, including two senior advocates, were summoned, while Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi were also asked to respond for comprehensive adjudication.

Notifications were issued through the Delhi Bar Council to two Delhi-based lawyers, seeking personal appearance and written submissions.  The Council emphasised its duty to uphold professional ethics and the integrity of the justice system.

The Kerala High Court invoked its powers under Section 58(1)  of the Advocates Act, 1961, to safeguard the enrollment process of law graduates in Kerala.

Law graduate Stephen V. Thomas highlighted conflicting Division Bench decisions and the Bar Council of Kerala's failure to constitute a valid quorum.

Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the State Bar Council isn’t functioning and directed the Bar Council of India’s Enrollment Committee to step in.

As an interim measure, the committee has been asked to schedule and conduct enrollments and report back. Additional hearings are set for one month later.

[Stephen Thomas v Bar Council of India]