Advocates’ Rights and Legal Insights

MP Woman Judge Resigns After Senior She Accused of Harassment Elevated to High Court Post

A woman judicial officer in Madhya Pradesh, Aditi Gajendra Sharma, has resigned after the man she accused of harassment was elevated to the High Court.

In her letter, she expressed deep betrayal, saying the system she served failed her.

Despite raising complaints with top judicial authorities, she received no response. She said the judiciary ignored due process and rewarded the person she had accused with promotion.

The letter reportedly states that the judicial officer leaves the institution with "no medals" but a "bitter truth" that the judiciary not only failed her but failed itself.

Read Details / 3 hours ago

UjjwalBookmark

Summons to Lawyers: Supreme Court to Examine If Magistrate Nod Should Be Mandatory

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether investigative agencies should obtain magistrate approval before summoning lawyers, especially in cases where the lawyer has merely rendered legal advice.

The observation came during the hearing of a suo motu case initiated after the Enforcement Directorate summoned Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal over a legal opinion in the Care Health Insurance-Religare ESOP matter.

The Bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran sought suggestions from the SCBA, SCAORA and others, and posted the matter for hearing on August 12.

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed mandatory magistrate approval, calling it legally untenable.

Read Details / 3 hours ago

UjjwalBookmark

Jharkhand High Court Stays Summons to Defence Advocate, Upholds Privileged Lawyer-Client Communication

The Jharkhand High Court, led by Justice Ananda Sen, condemned the practice of an investigating officer summoning a defence counsel, emphasizing that communication between an advocate and their client is privileged.

The court stayed the summons issued by the Railway Protection Force to advocate Agniva Sarkar, who represented accused in a case under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1996.

The summons sought Sarkar’s statement after an accused claimed Sarkar assured support in continuing unlawful activities.

The court noted the summons appeared aimed at extracting privileged communication and prohibited further similar notices until the petition’s disposal, safeguarding lawyer-client confidentiality. [Agniva Sarkar v The Union of India & Ors]

Order Copy / 3 days ago

MalavikaBookmark

No Plan to Mandate Minimum Stipend for Law Interns, Centre Tells Parliament

The Central government informed Parliament that it has no plans to mandate a minimum stipend for law interns.

Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal stated that the Bar Council of India (BCI) is preparing a Model Code of Legal Internships to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in the selection, conditions, and grievance redressal of internships.

Responding to a parliamentary query, the Law Ministry clarified that the Model Code aims to regulate internships offered by advocates, law firms, and legal departments.

Last year, BCI recommended a minimum stipend of ₹20,000 in urban and ₹15,000 in rural areas for junior advocates, but this stipend remains non-mandatory.

Read Details / 4 days ago

MalavikaBookmark

SCAORA Urges CJI Gavai to Ban Courtroom Videos and Social Media Solicitation by Lawyers

The Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA) has written to CJI BR Gavai requesting strict guidelines to prohibit videography, photography, and content sharing within Supreme Court premises, especially in High Security Zones.

SCAORA flagged lawyers’ growing practice of posting courtroom videos on social media platforms like Instagram, X, YouTube, and Facebook for soliciting work, violating the Bar Council of India rules.

They warned that such actions risk misleading the public, encouraging media trials, and damaging the judiciary’s integrity.

SCAORA seeks clear prohibitions on solicitation, bans on sharing court footage outside approved channels, and strict disciplinary measures, particularly targeting Advocates-on-Record for enforcement of compliance.

Read Official Letter / 4 days ago

MalavikaBookmark

Supreme Court Accepts Apology, Clears AoR in Misconduct Case After Split Verdict

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Advocate-on-Record P Soma Sundaram and another lawyer in a misconduct case, following a split verdict earlier.

A Bench led by CJI BR Gavai, with Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, accepted the lawyers' apologies and declined to impose penalties.

Earlier, Justice Bela Trivedi had ordered a one-month suspension and ₹1 lakh cost, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dissented, favouring forgiveness. The three-judge bench sided with Sharma, holding that genuine errors with sincere apologies shouldn’t end legal careers. (N Easwaranathan v. State)

6 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Assault on Lawyer for Drafting Complaint Undermines Rule of Law: Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

The Kerala High Court refused anticipatory bail to nine accused of assaulting a lawyer for drafting a complaint against them on behalf of his client.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphasised that such attacks directly threaten the rule of law and access to justice, as advocates are essential to enabling this right.

The court found prima facie evidence of serious injuries, including rib and spinal fractures, likely caused by a dangerous weapon.

Citing the need for custodial interrogation to establish motive and recover the weapon, the Court ruled that granting pre-arrest bail would hinder the investigation.

(Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors)

Read Order / 7 days ago

UjjwalBookmark

Gujarat High Court Orders Community Service to Man Who Attended Court Hearing from Toilet

The Gujarat High Court directed a man to perform community service after he joined the court proceedings through video call in addition to the ₹1 lakh fine imposed on him.

Justices AS Supehia and RT Vachhani observed that the man had dragged the Court to the toilet, and obliterated its sanctity and majesty.

The Bench was informed that Shah had paid the fine. The Court then suggested additional punishment in the form of community service at an old-age home. The Court emphasised that virtual hearings are no excuse for casual or disrespectful behaviour in judicial proceedings.

Read Details / 7 days ago

YashashviBookmark

Karnataka HC Directs BCI to Respond on Plea Seeking Dissolution of State Bar Council

The Karnataka High Court has asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to a petition challenging the extension of the Karnataka State Bar Council's term beyond five years.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that Section 8A of the Advocates Act mandates the BCI to constitute a Special Committee and conduct elections if polls are not held on time before tenure expiry.

BCI argued that Rule 32 allows an 18-month period for verification and six more months, making elections due by November 4, 2025.

The petitioner claimed the June 2023 extension lacked legal backing. The matter will be heard next on July 31.

(Rahamatulla Kothwal V Karnataka State Bar Council & Anr.)

7 days ago

MalavikaBookmark

SC Allows General Council Plea Seeking Protection for In-House Lawyers in Lawyers Privilege Case

The Supreme Court has permitted the General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) to intervene in proceedings concerning investigating agencies summoning advocates, including in-house lawyers, for legal advice given to clients.

GCAI argued that in-house counsel perform core legal functions and should be equally protected by privilege and confidentiality.

The plea emphasised that legal advice by in-house lawyers is just as integral to corporate legal affairs, and sought safeguards against such summons.

Read Details / 8 days ago

AnandBookmark

Supreme Court Slams ED for Summoning Senior Lawyers Over Legal Advice

The Supreme Court expressed concerns at the Enforcement Directorate’s summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal regarding legal opinions given to clients, emphasizing such communications are privileged.

A bench led by CJI BR Gavai questioned the ED’s actions and indicated it would soon lay down guidelines to protect lawyer-client privilege.

The Court directed the matter be listed for further hearing on July 29, and stated an amicus curiae will be appointed to assist in framing the necessary guidelines.

Read Details / 8 days ago

AnandBookmark

Kerala High Court Becomes First in India to Release AI Use Policy for Judges, says No AI for Judgments

The Kerala High Court has become the first in India to release a formal policy on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools by members of the State's district judiciary and the employees assisting them.

The policy permits judges to use AI only for non-decision-making tasks like legal research, summarisation, and document review, while strictly prohibiting AI in the actual drafting of judgments or orders.

The policy also bars the use of tools like ChatGPT and Deepseek. Only AI tools approved by the High Court or the Supreme Court can be used.

The Court emphasised that decisions must reflect human judicial reasoning, not machine output. This policy will also apply to any interns or law clerks working with the district judiciary in Kerala.

Read Details / 9 days ago

YashashviBookmark

Supreme Court Rejects Petition Against Allahabad High Court Photo Affidavit Rule

Case Name: Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad & Anr.

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s rule requiring litigants to appear in person for photo affidavits.

The petitioner argued the rule was arbitrary and violated constitutional rights. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that such administrative decisions fall under the High Court’s purview and cannot be questioned under Article 32.

However, liberty was granted to file a representation before the Chief Justice. Earlier, the High Court flagged arbitrary affidavit fees and upheld the validity of affidavits attested by Notaries across India.

Read Judgement / 11 days ago

SrushtiBookmark

Uttar Pradesh to Frame Rules Restricting Police From Contacting Advocates in Ongoing Court Cases

Case Name: Gauri Shankar Saroj vs. State of U.P. and others

The Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Allahabad High Court that it will issue statewide guidelines prohibiting police from visiting disputed sites or contacting advocates in sub-judice matters without court permission.

The assurance came during a PIL alleging police harassment over land litigation in Jaunpur, including threats to a 90-year-old petitioner and a raid on his lawyer’s home.

The Court took serious note of the trend of targeting lawyers for performing professional duties. On July 15, two officers were suspended, and show-cause notices were issued. The state was granted ten days to file affidavits. The matter is listed for July 28.

Read Order / 12 days ago

SrushtiBookmark

Supreme Court Issues Notice on PIL Seeking Grievance Redressal Body for Breach of Lawyers’ Privileges

The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a statutory grievance redressal mechanism to address violations of lawyers' professional privileges and rights.

The plea raises concern over growing instances where lawyers face unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, or harassment, often violating their rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner urged the Court to establish an independent body, similar to judicial complaints mechanisms, to address such grievances and uphold lawyers' dignity. The matter will be heard further after responses are filed. (Aaditya Gore v. Union of India)

Read Details / 12 days ago

YashashviBookmark