GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

Report No.266

The Advocates Act, 1961
(Regulation of Legal Profession)

March, 2017

 Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
l-ormer Judge Supreme Court of India
Chairman

sin ?Hamid dolde Ritz alum

sum
mm Law Commission of India
Government of India

 

my? gm.? Hindustan Times House
?bhl?dl 'll-Ell 'Il'l. lav?v? 110 001 Marg' New 06mm?) 001
(Emu 73736758. Telephone 23736/58. Fax 23355741

,4
March?, 2017 .

SRMIW Pv?mnaJL 'En' I

The Supreme Court in Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of (LP. (AIR 2016
SC 3302) while hearing the appeal in the matter of criminal contempt for
intimidating and threatening a Civil Judge (Senior Division) by an advocate
expressed its concern over unsatisfactory regulatory mechanism governing the
advocates and observed that there was an urgent need to review the provisions of
the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly dealing with the regulatory mechanism for
the legal profession and other identical issues in consultation with all concerned.
Accordingly the matter was referred to the Law commission of India asking to go
into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of the legal profession and submit
its report.

2. The Law Commission invited suggestions from all stakeholders on the
issue under examination and as to how the system could be improved. In
particular, the Law Commission requested the Bar Council of India the highest
body in the hierarchy under the Advocates Act, to send their views/suggestions
on review of the Advocates Act. The Registrar General of all High Courts, the
State Bar Councils, Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court
Advocates on Record Association were requested to send their suggestions on the
subject matter under examination.

3. On 10'h March, 2017, the Bar Council of India made comprehensive
recommendations on various issues relating to the Advocates Act and also
submitted a draft bill, in a comparative statement, for consideration of the
Commission. The BCI was of the view that in addition to the regulatory
mechanism, other inter-related issue i.e. constitution of the BCI and the State
Bar Councils are required to be revisited.

4. A large number of stakeholders have suggested that the Bar Council of
India as well as the State Bar Councils must have some non-lawyers as members
as provided in other professional bodies. The Medical Council of india, the
Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the Council of Architects
provide for representation by respective non-professionals also. I?herefore, the
Commission has accepted this concept for the Bar Councils to a limited extent.

Contd. ..

 

mat/Regdence TV, with ma aim wt, 1% m-11ooi1/7-A Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi?110011

ii

5. The Law Commission, while reviewing the Advocates Act, felt that
the conduct of the advocates, directly as well indirectly affects the
functioning of the courts, and thereby contributes to the pendency of
cases. The Commission felt that some provisions would be necessary to
regulate the conduct of advocates in the court, which affects the
functioning of the court as well as the expectations of the aggrieved, alike.
Keeping this in view, all the High Courts through the Chief Justices were
requested to send data on loss of working days by call of strikes in their
respective jurisdictions, during the last ?ve years. The Commission was
astonished on going through the responses received pursuant to its
request, as it was found that the strikes by the advocates were rampant
throughout the length and breadth of the country with little variation in
degree. The Commission deliberated upon all suggestions that have been
received from all stakeholders throughout the country and hence come to
the conclusion that the proposal to reform the Advocates Act has become
imperative.

6. The Commission, therefore, recommends that comprehensive
amendment should be brought forth in the Advocates Act, not only
keeping in view the present requirements, but such other requirements
that may arise in future for the better management and regulation of the
legal profession. A report titled ?The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation
of Legal Profession)? is placed below for consideration of the
Government. With a View to facilitate the initiative of taking forward the
reforms in legal profession, the Law Commission has prepared The
Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2017 which placed at of this
Report.

7. The Commission acknowledges the commendable assistance
provided by Ms. Sakshi Vijay, Sh. Arijeet Ghosh and Sh. Lalit Panda,
Consultants while working on this project.

WK Wm My YW . Yours sincerely

[Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan]

Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad

Hon?ble Minister for Law and Justice
Government of India

Shastri Bhawan,

New Delhi 1 10 15



Report No.266
The Advocates Act, 1961: Regulation of Legal Profession
Table of Contents
Chapter

Title

Page

I

Background – Inception of the Legal
Profession

1-2

II

Advent of the Constitution

3-4

III

Era of the Advocates Act, 1961

5-6

IV

Period of Aberration

7-8

V

Judicial Pronouncements and the Law

VI

Law Commission’s Initiative
Loss of Courts’ Working Days : A Staggering
Fact
Supreme Court Judgements on Strike Reprehensible act
Denouncing the Contemptuous acts of
Advocates
Propriety of performing public functions by
convicted persons

VII
VIII
IX
X
XI

Advocacy Lurking in the shadows

XII

Legal Education in India

9-10
11-12
13-14
15-23
24-29
30-32
33
34-39

A

Historic Perspectives

35

B

Constitutional Framework

35-36

C

Reports of previous Law Commissions

36-37

D

Legal Position

37-39

E

Conclusion

39

XIII

Pre-enrolment Training of Advocates

40

XIV

Prospects of Foreign Law Firms and Lawyers
in India

41-45

XV

Need for Defining Misconduct

46-47

XVI

The Relevance of Framework of Regulation of

48-51

iv

 Legal Profession in the United Kingdom
XVII

Need of Reviewing Regulatory Mechanism

52-56

Annexures
I
II
III

Bar Council of India – Proposed
Amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961
Analysis of the Responses Received by the
Law Commission of India
The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2017

v

57-87
88-92
93-112

 CHAPTER-I
Background – Inception of the Legal Profession
1.1

The dawn of Legal Profession in our country could be seen

in the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 (commonly known as the
Charter Act) which authorised establishment of the High Courts
under the Letters Patent and those Letters Patent empowered
the High Courts to make rules for enrolment of Advocates and
attorneys who were also known as solicitors. In the early days
three Acts, namely, the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (18 of
1879), the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920 (17 of 1920) and the
Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926) relating to legal
Practitioners were enacted. The importance of legal profession
in the Judicial Administration while dispensing justice with the
aid of those who could effectively present the case of a litigant,
was designed to usher in bringing the rule of law.

The legal

profession was acknowledged as the noble profession as it
catered to, and contributed to lay the firm foundations of a
system that dispenses fair and impartial justice. The desire of
common man to receive justice was taken care of by making
provisions for the presentation of a case and its redressal
through persons in whom trust was reposed.
1.2

Roscoe Pound, an eminent jurist states that “historically,

there are three ideas involved in a profession: organization,
learning, and a spirit of public service.”1 While considering these
elements essential, he states that the idea of gaining a livelihood
through profession is nothing more than an incidental element.
However, amongst the three elements, the most important with
regards to a profession is the spirit of public service. The ethical
compunctions of the professionals are similarly exemplified in a

1

Roscoe Pound, “What is a Profession - The Rise of the Legal Profession in Antiquity”, 19
Notre Dame L. Rev. 203 (1944), at p. 204.

1

 European Union Directive in which “liberal professions” were
described

as

“those

practised

on

the

basis

of

relevant

professional qualifications in a personal, responsible and
professionally

independent

capacity

by

those

providing

intellectual and conceptual services in the interest of the client
and the public”2 (emphasis added).
1.3

In

this

background,

the

founding

fathers

of

our

Constitution while adopting a federal governmental system,
entrusted a duty on the judiciary to strike a balance between
the functioning of the other organs of the Government while
protecting the life and liberty of the citizens. With the avowed
objective of conforming to the rule of law and dispensation of
justice as contained in it, the elements of a perfect system of
constituting courts on different tiers together with the system of
advocates in the legal profession, who have been conferred with
right to practice under the Constitution which now stands
embedded in the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
the Advocates Act).

2

Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Recognition of
Professional Qualifications (7 September 2005).

2

 CHAPTER-II
Advent of the Constitution
2.1.

Our judicial system is enshrined in the Constitution with

powers to dispense justice, including their constitution and
jurisdictions, and with powers to make their own rules. The
Supreme Court has been described as a court of record and
conferred with all powers including the powers to punish for its
contempt under article 129 of the Constitution. The power to
frame rules, subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament and with the approval of the President, has been
conferred on the Supreme Court under article 145 of the
Constitution.

Sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 145

specifically empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules
regarding the persons who can practice before it.
2.2.

There exists a distinction in the conferment of powers on

the High Courts. While conferring the powers on the High
Courts, rules as to the persons practicing before the Court have
not been provided for under the Constitution as compared to
the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. The power to enact
a law pertaining to the right to practice before a High Court has
been retained under Entry 78 of List I of the VIIth Schedule to
the Constitution, with Parliament itself.

However, the High

Court, being a court of record and has been conferred with
powers to punish for its contempt under article 215 of the
Constitution.

This article has significance as it confers the

power in relation to the proceedings of criminal contempt that
extends to awarding a sentence of punishment in the event of a
breach by an advocate vis-à-vis his professional misconduct in
the Court. The power, however, to frame a law on contempt and
to make provisions for the same are available with Parliament
3

 and the State Legislatures under Entry 14 of List III of Schedule
VII to the Constitution.
2.3

The expression ‘administration of justice’ also occur in

Entry 11-A of List III (Concurrent List). Whenever, it comes to
taking a broad view of the terminology aforesaid, the same can
also include within its fold the role of advocates in the
administration of justice. Entry 13 of List III, empowers
Parliament as well as the State Legislatures to frame rules
regarding procedure.

Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 and section 303 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 make exhaustive provisions for representation
of litigants through recognised agents and pleaders. Thus, the
statute has given a legal status to the participation of an
advocate in judicial proceedings. Separate sets of rules govern
engagement of advocates as empaneled lawyers on behalf of the
Central Government and State Governments as well as their
undertakings and such other bodies that are within their
control. Thus, the presence of advocates as part of the justice
delivery system is ingrained in our laws. With this in view Entry
26 in List III of Schedule VII was incorporated in the
Constitution, empowering Parliament and the State Legislatures
to frame laws with regard to the legal profession as well.

4

 CHAPTER-III
Era of the Advocates Act, 1961
3.1

With the passage of time, it was felt that the Judicial

Administration should be changed according to the needs of the
time. The First Law Commission examined and made a Report
on Reforms of Judicial Administration.
Committee

also

examined

the

matter

The All India Bar
and

made

its

recommendations in 1953. To implement the recommendations
of All India Bar Committee after taking into account the Law
Commission’s recommendations made in its Fourteenth Report
in so far as they relate to the Bar and to legal education, the
Advocates Act was enacted.
3.2

The Advocates Act amalgamates, codifies and consolidates

the law relating to the regulation of practice by advocates and
the system of the legal profession. This regulatory law with the
various bodies constituted under it, including the Bar Council
of India and the State Bar Councils, has been controlling the
legal profession for more than half a century with many
amendments in the past.
3.3

The effectiveness of our judicial system and growing legal

awareness amongst the masses, has seen a corresponding
growth in the enrolment of advocates throughout the country
compared to that existed in the pre-independence era. The legal
profession has now become one of the most sought after
professions and not as a secondary profession by any means.
The nature of litigation in our multi-dimensional legal system
with a variety of laws and redressal mechanisms has brought
forward the participation of advocates in every field of socioeconomic growth and development.
5

The advocates have now

 become an indispensable part of our judicial system at all
levels, including courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities and
administrative authorities as well.

6

 CHAPTER-IV
Period of Aberration
4.1

The opening of new vistas in the legal profession has

brought with it the inherent problems of

deficiency

in

professionalism, ethical decline and lack of devotion. The interrivalry

between

professionalism

and

competition

with

a

materialistic approach in a growing society affected by social,
political and economic changes has led to the legal profession
acquiring a mantle that it did not possess long before.
fraternity

of

advocates

had

in

the

past

actively

The
been

participating on all social fronts but this dimension has now
become multi-faceted. This holistic form of participation in all
walks of life, therefore, demands more responsibility and
obligations requiring observance of moral and ethical values for
preserving the basic ethos of this legal profession.
4.2

In recent years, the role of advocates, particularly in the

dispensation of justice through courts of law, has come under
sharp criticism and is being viewed as an eyesore by the public.
A news item published in the Indian Express dated 09 March
2009, titled ‘Laws for Lawyers’, spoke of the crumbling
regulatory structure after having witnessed a decline in the
conduct of advocates; and lawyers that was unprofessional and
inconvenienced by a variety of instances. More particularly, it
referred to lawyers resorting to strikes and boycotts to the
detriment of the litigants.

The news item refers to the Sri

Krishna Commission’s Interim Report that has brought out the
kind of violent incident that took place in the Madras High
Court. It also quoted regulations adopted abroad, particularly in
the United Kingdom by passing of the Legal Services Act, 2007
7

 with an express purpose to set up an independent Board to
examine allegations of lawyers’ misconduct. It also refers to the
systems prevalent in other democracies i.e., in the United States
of America.

The item concludes that the time had come to

reform the Bar Councils in India and to revisit the laws
regulating the professional conduct of advocates.
4.3

Several unpleasant incidents in the past, some of them

occasional in nature, and most of them organized, have led to a
severe criticism by the society and the members of the legal
profession by reason of their behaviour and misconduct are now
being looked upon with distrust.

The advocates’ conduct in

courts, behaviour with litigants and their unprofessional
conduct, including the act of going on frequent strikes as a
measure of protest for irrelevant issues has reached to terrifying
proportions.

This has resulted in the loss of opportunity to

litigants to get their grievances redressed, coupled with the
introduction of greater violence, both in courts and outside, in
various forms.

This has even forced working advocates to

absent themselves from work, a fact that has come in the notice
of the courts through its judicial pronouncements. In spite of
repeated pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High
Courts declaring strikes and boycotts to be illegal, the same has
continued unabated, coupled with violence and instances of
misconduct. This issue has been addressed in certain instances
with severe punishments, including debarment of lawyers from
even practicing in courts.

8

 CHAPTER-V
Judicial Pronouncements and the Law
5.1

The full bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in

the case of K K Jha “Kamal” & Anr. v. Pankaj Kumar & Anr.3, the
full bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Sadhna Upadhyay v. State of U.P.4, and the recent judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of
UP 5 , are pointers in relation to professional misconduct of
lawyers that ultimately resulted in a direction by the Supreme
Court asking the Law Commission of India to go into all relevant
aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in consultation
with all concerned at an early date.

It also requested

Parliament to consider enactment of the law that would
effectively empower the authorities for such effective regulation.
5.2

The

Courts

have

been

making

observations

and

commenting on the effective application and working of the
provisions of the Advocates Act, particularly in respect of
regulation of disciplinary proceedings against advocates.

In

Mahipal Singh Rana6, the appellant therein was found guilty of
criminal contempt for intimidating and threatening a Civil
Judge (Sr. Division), by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad. He was awarded a sentence of a short term
imprisonment along with fine and was also restrained from
entering the court premises, and was debarred from appearing
and practicing in the District Court of Etah, in U.P.

He

preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Court

3

AIR 2007 Jhar 67.
2009 (4) ADJ 434.
5
AIR 2016 SC 3302.
6
Ibid.
4

9

 considering that an important legal issue was involved, referred
it to a larger bench.
5.3

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and order of the

High Court observing that superior courts have supervisory
powers to regulate the right of an advocate to appear in court,
and even in the absence of any rule framed under section 34(1)
of the Advocates Act, the Court can restrain an advocate from
appearing for a specific period of time.

The Court further

observed that it was undesirable for a convicted person to
perform important public functions in view of section 24A of the
Advocates Act and that there was an urgent need to amend the
provisions so that the bar applicable at the entry level could be
extended to a situation post enrolment where the delinquent
advocate had already been enrolled by the Bar Council
concerned. Further, due to failure of the State Bar Council to
take action against the appellant therein, the Court exercised its
suo motu powers under section 38 of the Advocates Act and
suspended the licence of the appellant for a period of 5 years.
5.4

Being

dismayed

with

the

unsatisfactory

regulatory

mechanism governing the advocates, the Supreme Court
expressed its anguish observing that there was an urgent need
to review the provisions of the Advocates Act, particularly
dealing with the regulatory mechanism for the legal profession
and other identical issues in consultation with all concerned.
And, thus the matter has been referred to the Law Commission
of India asking to go into all relevant aspects relating to
regulation of the legal profession and submit its report.

10

 CHAPTER-VI
Law Commission’s Initiative
6.1

The Commission invited suggestions from all stakeholders

by putting on its website a notice dated 22nd July, 2016, as to
how the system could be improved.

The attention of the Bar

Council of India was drawn to the said notice by writing a letter
on 3rd August, 2016. The Registrar General of all High Courts
were

addressed

a

similar

email

on

4th

August,

2016.

Simultaneously, an email was sent to all the State Bar Councils,
Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates
on Record Association.

On the same day, the Chairman

addressed a letter to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts,
requesting them to use their good offices to give wide publicity
to the endeavour of the Commission amongst the various
associations of Advocates’ (in whatever name they exist), with a
request to send their response directly to the Commission by
email at the earliest.
6.2

In pursuance of the aforesaid, the Bar Council of India,

the highest body in the hierarchy under the Advocates Act,
appointed an Advisory Committee headed by Mr. Justice Shivraj
Patil, former Judge, Supreme Court of India.

The BCI made

comprehensive recommendations on various issues relating to
the Advocates Act and also submitted a draft Bill for
consideration of the Commission. The Bar Council of India was
of the view that in addition to the regulatory mechanism, other
inter-related issues, i.e., constitution of the BCI and the State
Bar Councils are also required to be revisited. The BCI made
some suggestions in this regard. The draft Bill prepared by the
Bar Council of India is annexed as Annexure I to this Report. In
response to the request of the Commission, several stakeholders
11

 like Bar Associations, individual advocates and judicial officers
have sent their valuable suggestions. A summary of their
responses is annexed as Annexure II to this Report.
6.3

The Law Commission, while reviewing the Advocates Act,

felt that the conduct of the advocates, directly as well indirectly
affects the functioning of the courts, and thereby contributes to
the pendency of cases.

The Commission felt that some

provisions would be necessary to regulate the conduct of
advocates in the court, which affects the functioning of the
court as well as the expectations of the aggrieved, alike.
Keeping this in view, all the High Courts through the Chief
Justices were requested to send data on loss of working days by
call of strikes in their respective jurisdictions, during the last
five years. The Commission was astonished on going through
the responses received pursuant to its request, as it was found
that the strikes by the advocates were rampant throughout the
length and breadth of the country with little variation in degree.

12

 CHAPTER-VII
Loss of Courts’ Working Days: A Staggering Fact
7.1

Every High Court, on its administrative side, takes a

decision fixing the minimum number of working days for
subordinate courts which varies from State to State.
7.2.

In the State of Uttarakhand, the information sent by the

High Court for the years 2012-2016 shows that in Dehradun
District, the Advocates were on strike for 455 days during 20122016 (on an average, 91 days per year). In Haridwar District,
515 days (103 days a year) were wasted on account of strike.
7.3

In the case of the State of Rajasthan, the High Court of

Judicature at Jodhpur saw 142 days of strike during 20122016, while the figure stood at 30 for the Jaipur Bench.

In

Ajmer District courts, strikes remained for 118 days in the year
2014 alone, while in Jhalawar, 146 days were lost in 2012 on
account of strike.
7.4

The case of Uttar Pradesh appears to be the worst. The

figures of strike for the years 2011-2016 in the subordinate
courts are alarmingly high.

In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the

District courts have to work for 265 days in a year. The period
of strike in five years period in worst affected districts has been
as - Muzaffarnagar (791 days), Faizabad (689 days), Sultanpur
(594 days), Varanasi (547 days), Chandauli (529 days),
Ambedkar Nagar (511 days), Saharanpur (506 days) and
Jaunpur (510 days). The average number of days of strike in
eight worst affected districts comes to 115 days a year. Thus, it
is evident that the courts referred to hereinabove could work on
an average for 150 days only in a year.
13

 7.5

In this regard, the situation in subordinate courts in

Tamil Nadu had by no means, been better. The High Court of
Tamil Nadu has reported that there are 220 working days in a
year for the courts in the State. During the period 2011-2016,
districts like Kancheepuram, 687 days (137.4 days per year);
Kanyakumari, 585 days (117 days per year); Madurai, 577 days
(115.4 days per year); Cuddalore, 461 days (92.2 days per year);
and Sivagangai, 408 days (81.6 days per year), were the most
affected by strike called by advocates.
7.6

As per the responses received from the High Courts of

Madhya Pradesh and Odisha, the picture does not emerge to be
satisfactory.
7.7

The Commission noted that the strike by advocates or

their abstinence from the court were hardly for any justifiable
reasons. It could not find any convincing reasons for which the
advocates resorted to strike or boycott of work in the courts.
The reasons for strike call or abstinence from work varied from
local, national to international issues, having no relevance to
the working of the courts.

To mention a few, bomb blast in

Pakistan school, amendments to Sri Lanka’s Constitution,
interstate river water disputes, attack on / murder of advocate,
earthquake in Nepal, to condole the death of their near relatives,
to show solidarity to advocates of other State Bar Associations,
moral support to movements by social activists, heavy rains, or
on some religious occasions such as shraadh, Agrasen Jayanti,
etc. or even for kavi sammelan.
7.8

The Commission is of the view that unless there are

compelling circumstances and the approval for a symbolic strike
of one day is obtained from the Bar Council concerned, the
advocates shall not resort to strike or abstention from the court
work.
14

 CHAPTER-VIII
Supreme Court Judgements on Strike –
Reprehensible act
8.1

The prevailing situation in the courts are a real eye-

opener and ironically it is one of the reasons for pendency of
about 2.5 crores cases in subordinate courts. The Supreme
Court had consistently been declaring that advocates do not
have a right to call for strikes and held that the lawyers’ strikes
are illegal and that effective steps should be taken to stop the
growing

tendency.

Pandurang

In

numerous

Dattatraya

Khandekar

cases
v.

beginning
Bar

from

Council

of

Maharashtra, Bombay 7 ; to Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of
India 8 , it was held that the advocates have no right to go on
strike. The Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters
because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of
all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the
absence of lawyers. In other words, Court must not be privy to
strikes or calls for boycotts. It was held that if a lawyer, holding
a vakalatnama of a client, abstains from attending Court due to
a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which
shall be in addition to damages which he might have to pay his
client for loss suffered by him.
8.2

It is relevant to mention here that the Supreme Court, in

Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal,

9

dealt extensively with strikes by

advocates. The Court held:
“… that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a
call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The
protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press
7

AIR 1984 SC 110.
AIR 2003 SC 739.
9
Ibid.
8

15

 statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court
premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or
white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protest
marches outside and away from Court premises,
going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. …only in the
rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and
independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at
stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a
protest abstention from work for not more than one
day…”
8.3

In spite of all these, the strikes have continued unabated.

The dispensation of justice must not stop for any reason. The
strike by lawyers have lowered the image of the courts in the
eyes of the general public. The Supreme Court has held that
right to speedy justice is included in article 21 of the
Constitution. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of
Bihar10; and in some other cases, it was held that the litigant
has a right to speedy justice. The lawyers’ strike, however,
result in denial of these rights to the citizens in the State.
8.4

Recently, the Supreme Court while disposing off the

Criminal Appeal of Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India11 deprecated
the practice of boycotting the Court observing that:
“One other aspect pointed out is the obstruction of Court
proceedings by uncalled for strikes/abstaining of work
by lawyers or frequent suspension of court work after
condolence references. In view of judgment of this Court
in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal versus Union of India, such
suspension of work or strikes are clearly illegal and it is
high time that the legal fraternity realizes its duty to the
society which is the foremost. Condolence references can
be once in a while periodically say once in two/three
months and not frequently. Hardship faced by witnesses
if their evidence is not recorded on the day they are
summoned or impact of delay on under trials in custody
on account of such avoidable interruptions of court
proceedings is a matter of concern for any responsible
10
11

AIR 1979 SC 1360.
Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2017 decided on 9th March 2017.

16

 body of professionals and they must take appropriate
steps. In any case, this needs attention of all concerned
authorities
–
the
Central
Government/State
Governments/Bar Councils/Bar Associations as well as
the High Courts and ways and means ought to be found
out to tackle this menace. Consistent with the above
judgment, the High Courts must monitor this aspect
strictly and take stringent measures as may be required
in the interests of administration of justice.”.
8.5

In Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor12, the apex

Court observed that if any advocate claims that his right to
strike must be without any loss to him, but the loss must only
be borne by his innocent client, such a claim is repugnant to
any principle of fair play and canons of ethics. Therefore, when
he opts to strike or boycott the Court he must as well be
prepared to bear at least the pecuniary loss suffered by the
litigant client who entrusted his brief to that advocate with all
confidence that his cause would be safe in the hands of that
advocate.
8.6

The

Constitution

provides

for

an

independent

and

efficient justice delivery system. Any delay in disposal of cases
not only creates disillusionment amongst the litigants, but also
undermines the capability of the system to impart justice in an
effective manner.

13

The Supreme Court disapproved the

conduct of the party resorting to dilatory tactics before the court
seeking adjournments on one or other pretext and observed that
the party acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice
and to the concept of speedy disposal of cases14.
8.7

In addition to the issue of strikes, the Supreme Court has

also dealt with a large number of cases of browbeating of courts
by advocates for getting a favourable order. As a rule, an
12

AIR 2001 SC 207.
Syed Gulzar Hussain v. Dewan Syed Ale Ramul Ali Khan, (2014) 10 SCC 825.
14
Gayathri v. M.Girish, (2016) 14 SCC 142.
13

17

 Advocate, as an officer of the court, cannot be adamant on any
unwarranted and uncalled for issue.
8.8

The Supreme Court in Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v.

State of Uttar Pradesh15 held:
“The Superior Courts have a duty to protect the
reputation of judicial officers of subordinate courts,
taking note of the growing tendency of maligning
the reputation of judicial officers by unscrupulous
practising advocates who either fail to secure
desired orders or do not succeed in browbeating for
achieving ulterior purpose. Such an issue touches
upon the independence of not only the judicial
officers but brings the question of protecting the
reputation of the Institution as a whole.”
8.9

In M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana16, it

has been opined that:
“The tendency of maligning the reputation of
judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to
secure the desired order is ever on the increase
and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And,
when a member of the profession resorts to such
cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the
Judge into submission, it is all the more painful.
When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise
which would shake the confidence of the litigating
public in the system, the damage caused is not
only to the reputation of the Judge concerned but
also to the fair name of the judiciary.”

15
16

AIR 2011 SC 2275.
AIR 1991 SC 1834.

18

 8.10 In R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma17, the Supreme
Court held:
“In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast
upon the legal profession to show the people
beckon (sic beacon) light by their conduct and
actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass
of the people need a helping hand from the legal
profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most
respectable profession. No effort should be made or
allowed to be made by which a litigant could be
deprived of his rights, statutory as well as
constitutional, by an advocate only on account of
the exalted position conferred upon him under the
judicial system prevalent in the country.”
8.11 In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.18, the
Supreme Court held that it is the solemn duty of every Court to
proceed with the judicial business during court hours and no
Court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any
kind of browbeating. The Court held:
“At any rate, no advocate can ask the Court to
avoid a case on the ground that he does not want
to appear in that Court.”
8.12 In M/s. Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash 19 , the
Court deprecated the practice of making allegations against the
Judges observing as under:
“Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to
“terrorize” or “intimidate” Judges with a view to
“secure” orders which they want. This is basic and
fundamental
and
no
civilised
system
of
administration of justice can permit it.”

17

AIR 2000 SC 2912.
AIR 1999 SC 287.
19
AIR 1998 SC 1855.
18

19

 Similar view has been reiterated in Radha Mohan Lal v.
Rajasthan High Court20.
8.13 In view of the observations by the Courts, in the event of a
strike, a court is not obliged to become complicit in the illegality
by adjourning the case for the absence of counsel, it may
proceed to pass orders ex parte. Litigation work requires the
representatives and authorities to systematically engage in legal
proceedings at various points over sustained periods of time so
as to arrive at resolution to the disputes. To use this situation of
necessity to claim increased bargaining power is a wanton
perversion of the aims of the justice delivery system. To forcibly
prevent other advocates from appearing in their respective
proceedings is even worse. The act of going on strike amounts to
a violation of an advocate’s duty as an officer of the court and
his duty to maintain standards of professional conduct and
ethics. It also results in a violation of his agreement with the
client. At the same time, it is also contempt of court and a
violation

of

the

unacceptable

right

actions

of
of

speedy
advocates

trial
have

for

litigants. The

not

shown any

significant improvement despite the establishment of competent
authorities to regulate the conduct of advocates. The reasons for
strikes reported in case law have not been found to justify
organised violence directly prejudicial to the vital function of
justice delivery.
8.14 The unacceptable trend of making false allegations
against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be
curbed, otherwise the judicial system would lose its credibility.
The Bench and the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations on
trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in the
interest of none. “Liberty of free expression is not to be
20

AIR 2003 SC 1467.

20

 confounded or confused with license to make unfounded
allegations against any institution, much less the Judiciary”21.
An Advocate in a profession as well in his conduct should be
diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an
Advocate plays an important role in the preservation of justice
system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by
an Advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Any kind of
deviance not only affects the system but corrodes the faith of
the people at large22.
8.15 In Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through
District Judge23, the Supreme Court observed:
“The judicial proceeding has its own solemnity and
sanctity. No one has any authority to sully the
same. It is the obligation of everyone to behave
with propriety when a judicial proceeding is
conducted. Any kind of deviancy not only affects
the system but corrodes the faith of the collective
at large. Neither any counsel nor a litigant can
afford to behave in this manner.”
8.16 The lawyer who presents the application before the court
making

unfounded

allegations

against

a

judicial

officer,

impleading him by name, though not permissible in law as
explained by the Court in Savitri Devi v. District Judge,
Gorakhpur 24 , without reasonably satisfying himself about the
prima

facie

existence

of

adequate

grounds,

is

equally

responsible for contempt for scandalizing the court for the
reason that he cannot be a mouthpiece of his client and cannot
associate himself with his client in maligning the reputation of
judicial officer merely because his client failed to secure the
desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to
Dr.D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216, 220.
O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 2101.
23
(2013) 14 SCC 127.
24
AIR 1999 SC 976.
21
22

21

 scandalise the court which would shake the confidence of the
litigating public in the system would cause a very serious
damage to the name of the judiciary25.
8.17 In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey26, the Supreme Court held:
“No one can be permitted to intimidate or terrorize
judges by making scandalous unwarranted and
baseless imputations against them in the discharge of
their judicial functions so as to secure orders which
the litigant ‘wants’…The liberty of expression cannot
be treated as a licence to scandalize the court...”
8.18 In Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala 27 , the
Supreme Court observed, “An advocate in no circumstances is
expected to descend to the level of appearing to support his view
in a vulgar brawl.”
8.19 In Re: S. Mulgaokar28, the Supreme Court observed that
public interest and public justice require that whenever there is
an attack on the judge, it is scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory
or malicious, the law must strike a blow on him as he
challenges the supremacy of law by fouling the source and
stream.
8.20 The legal profession requires the safeguarding of moral
standards. As an officer of the court, a lawyer has a duty to the
court towards his profession and to the public. Since the prime
duty of a lawyer is to assist the court in dispensing justice, the
members of the Bar cannot behave in a manner which is

M.Y. Shareef v. Hon’ble Judges of Nagpur High Court AIR 1955 SC 19; Shamsher Singh
Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana AIR 1995 SC 1974; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of
Gujarat (2009) 11 SCC 678 and R.K.Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC
106.
26
AIR 1998 SC 3299.
27
AIR 2004 SC 2227.
28
AIR 1978 SC 727.
25

22

 doubtful, or full of scruples or which strives to thrive on
litigation. Lawyers must remember that they are to assist the
court in the administration of justice. If lawyers do not perform
their function properly, it would be degenerative to the rule of
law.
8.21 A suggestion has been made that at every district
headquarters, the District Judge may constitute an Advocates’
Grievance Redressal Committee headed by a Judicial Officer
which will deal with the day to day routine matters, as large
number of issues and grievances arise in the smooth working of
the advocates.

In this regard, the High Court may issue a

circular in exercise of its power under article 235 of the
Constitution providing for redressal of grievances of the
Advocates which will help in improving their efficiency.
8.22 In case there is some grievance against a Judicial Officer,
the Bar may raise the grievance before the Chief Justice of the
concerned High Court.

23

 CHAPTER-IX
Denouncing the Contemptuous acts of Advocates
9.1

In a case, where the attitude of a lawyer is contemptuous,

the Court may initiate the proceeding for contempt against the
lawyer and restrain him from appearance. In Supreme Court Bar
Association v. Union of India 29 , the Supreme Court held as
under:
“In a given case it may be possible, for the Court or
the High Court, to prevent the contemnor Advocate
to appear before it till he purges himself of the
contempt but that is much different from suspending
or revoking his licence or debarring him to practice
as an Advocate….”
9.2

Similarly in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India30, the

Supreme Court held as under:
“One last thing which must be mentioned is that the
right of appearance in Courts is still within the
control and jurisdiction of courts. Section 30 of the
Advocates Act has not been brought into force and
rightly so. Control of conduct in Court can only be
within the domain of courts. Thus, article 145 of the
Constitution of India gives to the Supreme Court and
section 34 of the Advocates Act gives to the High
Court power to frame rules including rules regarding
condition on which a person (including an advocate)
can practice in the Supreme Court and/or in the
High Court and Courts subordinate thereto. Many
Courts have framed rules in this behalf. Such a rule
would be valid and binding on all. Let the Bar take
note that unless self-restraint is exercised, Courts
may now have to consider framing specific rules
debarring advocates, guilty of contempt and/or
unprofessional or unbecoming conduct, from
appearing before the courts. Such a rule if framed
would not have anything to do with the disciplinary
29
30

AIR 1998 SC 1895.
Supra note 8.

24

 jurisdiction of the Bar Councils. It would be
concerning the dignity and orderly functioning of the
courts. The right of the advocate to practice
envelopes a lot of acts to be performed by him in
discharge of his professional duties. Apart from
appearing in the Courts he can be consulted by his
clients, he can give his legal opinion whenever
sought for, he can draft instruments, pleadings,
affidavits or any other documents, he can participate
in any conference involving legal discussions, he can
work in any office or firm as a legal officer, he can
appear for clients before an arbitrator or arbitrators
etc. Such a rule would have nothing to do with all
the acts done by an advocate during his practice. He
may even file vakalatnama on behalf of a client even
though his appearance inside the Court is not
permitted. Conduct in Court is a matter
concerning the Court and hence the Bar Council
cannot claim that what should happen inside the
Court could also be regulated by them in exercise
of their disciplinary powers.” (Emphasis Added)
9.3

In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court 31 , the

Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court
debarring the advocate to appear in Courts for a particular
period for proved misconduct, observing that unless a person
purges himself of contempt or is permitted by the court
conviction results in debarring an advocate from appearing in
the court even in absence of suspension or termination of the
licence to practice. In Amit Chanchal Jha v. High Court of
Delhi32, the Supreme Court reiterated the same view upholding
the order debarring the advocate from appearance in court on
account of his conviction for criminal contempt.
9.4

The Supreme Court in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High

Court33, directed that the contemnor shall not do any kind of
professional work charging any fees or for any personal
considerations for one year from the date of judgment. He shall
31

(2009) 8 SCC 106.
(2015) 13 SCC 288.
33
AIR 2013 SC 670.
32

25

 exclusively devote his professional services to help pro bono the
accused who, on account of lack of resources, are not in a
position to engage any lawyer to defend themselves and have no
means to have their cases effectively presented before the court.
The contemnor shall place his professional services at the
disposal of the Delhi Legal Services Authority which, in
coordination with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority,
will frame a scheme to avail of the contemnor’s services for
attending the case of undefended accused either at the trial or
at the appellate stage. The contemnor shall appear in court only
in cases assigned to him by the Legal Services Authority. The
Delhi Legal Services Authority shall keep a record of all the
cases assigned to the contemnor and the result/progress made
in those cases. At the end of the year, the Delhi Legal Services
Authority shall submit a report to Supreme Court in regard to
all the cases done by the contemnor at its instance which shall
be placed before the Judges for perusal. At the end of one year
it will be open to the contemnor to resume his private law
practice. But he shall not leave any case assigned to him by the
Legal Services Authority incomplete. He shall continue to do
those cases, free of cost, till they come to a close.
9.5

Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, most of the High

Courts have framed the rules under s.34(1) of the Advocates
Act, empowering High Courts as well as the district judges
concerned to pass an order debarring an advocate from
appearing in court. The relevant parts of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, read as under:
“10. Suspension of advocate under C.P.C.:- No
advocate who has been debarred or suspended or
whose name has been struck off the Roll of
Advocates shall be permitted to act as a recognised
agent of any party within the meaning of Order III
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
26

 11. Appearance of advocate after committing
contempt:- No advocate who has been found guilty
of contempt of Court shall be permitted to appear,
act or plead in any Court unless he has purged
himself of contempt, either by tendering apology
which is accepted or by suffering punishment
imposed on him or where, in case of an appeal, a
stay order is in operation.
[Explanation: For the purpose of purging of
contempt under this Rule, the suffering of
punishment or payment of fine or both shall not
necessarily be sufficient.]”
9.6.

The Madras High Court, on 20 May 2016 published

amendments to rules framed under section 34(1) of the Act,
1961. The relevant portions are reproduced below:
“14-A: Power to Debar:….
(vii) An Advocate who is found to have accepted
money in the name of a Judge or on the pretext of
influencing him; or
(viii) An Advocate who is found to have tampered with
the Court record or Court order; or
(ix) An Advocate who browbeats and/or abuses a
Judge or Judicial Officer; or
(x) An Advocate who is found to have sent or spread
unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations/petitions
against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the Superior
Court; or
(xi) An Advocate who actively participates in a
procession inside the Court campus and/or involves
in gherao inside the Court Hall or holds placard
inside the Court Hall; or
(xii) An Advocate who appears in the Court under the
influence of liquor;
shall be debarred from appearing before the High
Court or Subordinate Courts permanently or for such
period as the Court may think fit and the Registrar
27

 General shall thereupon report the said fact to the
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
14-B: Power to take action:…
(iv) Where any such misconduct referred to under
Rule 14-A is committed by an Advocate before the
High Court, the High Court shall have the power to
initiate action against the Advocate concerned and
debar him from appearing before the High Court and
all Subordinate Courts.
(v) Where any such misconduct referred to under
Rule 14-A is committed by an Advocate before the
Court of Principal District Judge, the Principal
District Judge shall have the power to initiate action
against the Advocate concerned and debar him from
appearing before any Court within such District.
(vi) Where any such misconduct referred to under
Rule 14-A is committed by an Advocate before any
subordinate court, the Court concerned shall submit
a report to the Principal District Court within whose
jurisdiction it is situate and on receipt of such report,
the Principal District Judge shall have the power to
initiate action against the Advocate concerned and
debar him from appearing before any Court within
such District.
14-C: Procedure to be followed:The High Court or the Court of Principal District
Judge, as the case may be, shall, before making an
order under Rule 14-A, issue to such Advocate a
summon returnable before it, requiring the Advocate
to appear and show cause against the matters alleged
in the summons and the summons shall if
practicable, be served personally upon him.
14-D: Power to pass Interim Order:The High Court or the Court of Principal District
Judge may, before making the Final Order under
Rule 14-C, pass an interim order prohibiting the
Advocate concerned from appearing before the High
Court or Subordinate Courts, as the case may be, in
appropriate cases, as it may deem fit, pending
enquiry.”
28

 9.7.

Other High Courts, like the Gujarat High Court, have also

framed similar set of rules under section 34(1) of the Advocates
Act.

29

 CHAPTER-X
Propriety of performing public functions by
convicted persons
10.1 The Law Commission considered the desirability of
suggesting modifications in section 24A of the Advocates Act
which provides for disqualification for enrolment in certain
cases.

Section 24A provides that any person who has been

convicted of an offence, may become eligible to be enrolled as an
advocate after the expiry of two years from completion of the
sentence.

Further, it is also seen that section 26A, which

makes provision for Bar Councils to remove names from the
rolls, does not provide for removal of names of advocates, who
stands

convicted

for

an

offence.

These

aspects

need

examination, keeping in view the judgment given by the Gujarat
High Court in ‘C’ v. Bar Council of Gujarat34 which was quoted
and reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mahipal Singh Rana
(supra), as under:
“... We, however, wish to avail of this opportunity to
place on record our feeling of distress and dismay at the
fact that a public servant who is found guilty of an
offence of taking an illegal gratification in the discharge
of his official duties by a competent court can be enrolled
as a member of the Bar even after a lapse of two years
from the date of his release from imprisonment. It is for
the authorities who are concerned with this question to
reflect on the question as to whether such a provision is
in keeping with the high stature which the profession
(which we so often describe as the noble profession)
enjoys and from which even the members of highest
judiciary are drawn. It is not a crime of passion
committed in a moment of loss of equilibrium.
Corruption is an offence which is committed after
deliberation and it becomes a way of life for him. ... It is
for the legal profession to consider whether it would like
such a provision to continue to remain on the statute
book and would like to continue to admit persons who
34

(1982)2Guj LR 706.

30

 have been convicted for offences involving moral
turpitude and persons who have been found guilty of
acceptance of illegal gratification, rape, dacoity, forgery,
misappropriation of public funds, relating to counterfeit
currency and coins and other offences of like nature to
be enrolled as members merely because two years have
elapsed after the date of their release from
imprisonment. Does passage of 2 years cleanse such a
person of the corrupt character trait, purify his mind
and transform him into a person fit for being enrolled as
a member of this noble profession? Enrolled so that
widows can go to him, matters pertaining to properties of
minors and matters on behalf of workers pitted against
rich and influential persons can be entrusted to him
without qualms, court records can be placed at his
disposal, his word at the Bar should be accepted?
Should a character certificate in the form of a black
gown be given to him so that a promise of probity and
trustworthiness is held out to the unwary litigants
seeking justice? A copy of this order may, therefore, be
sent to the appropriate authorities concerned with the
administration of the Bar Council of India and the State
Bar Council, Ministry of Law of the Government of India
and Law Commission in order that the matter may be
examined fully and closely with the end in view to
preserve the image of the profession and protect the
seekers for justice from dangers inherent in admitting
such persons on the rolls of the Bar Council.”.
10.2. The Law Commission is of the view that wiping out the
bar after enrolment, in case of conviction of an advocate after
two years in the nature of cases mentioned in section 24A, does
not render the person in any way desirable to plead on behalf of
a person seeking redressal of his grievance through the justice
delivery system. The legal profession, as such, has been placed
on a very high pedestal acknowledging advocates’ legal status
and authority to plead on behalf of a person in court of law.
Similarly, there can be hardly any justification for wiping out
such

disqualification,

which

is

otherwise

applicable

for

enrolment, after the enrolment is made. Having regard to the
broader objective of the provision, the said bar should certainly
operate post enrolment.

With this in view, the Commission
31

 recommends the substitution of section 24A and 26A with new
provisions to take care of the objectives of undesirability of a
convicted person being allowed to perform important public
functions.

32

 CHAPTER-XI
Advocacy lurking in the shadows
11.1 As per recent media reports35 , the Bar Council of India
conducted verification of advocates under the Bar Council of
India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015,
and it was reported that a very high percentage (33 to 45%) of
lawyers were fake. Such lawyers were practicing either with the
fake law degree or without any degree at all.

The process of

verification is not yet complete and the so-called bogus lawyers
could be identified only by scrutiny.

Apprehension has been

raised that the alleged bogus lawyers could have succeeded in
making entry in the judiciary, government services and some of
them could have been appointed as Government pleaders, Law
Officers, etc. Such persons might have succeeded in mission by
impersonation and entering into criminal conspiracy.

Thus

legal advice offered by such persons could affect the deliverance
and quality of justice and their mere existence in legal system
would definitely erode the public trust.
11.2 This is a crucial matter casting shadow on the nobility of
the legal profession.

As such, to establish the probity of

advocacy, it requires a thorough scrutiny and verification.
Towards this end, the Law Commission recommends a specific
rule making power for Bar Council of India to make rules for
verification of certificates of Advocates and for periodical
verification of antecedents, conduct, place of practice of
Advocates; and to make a data based web-portal of all the
advocates.

35

The Times of India, Delhi dated 23.01.2017, The Hindu dated 26.01.2017 and Hindustan
Times dated 19.03.2017.

33

 CHAPTER – XII
Legal Education in India
12.1 The mandate to the Commission is centred on regulating
the conduct of advocates in the profession. It is necessary to
point out that it would only be a piecemeal effort of addressing
the issues involved if, we do not realise that the regulatory
scheme for the maintenance of standards should run in a
straight line from the stage of education and training to
enrolment and active practice. Any laxity in standard-setting at
the foundational level would multiply the problems at later
stages.
12.2 Lawyers have been in the vanguard of a country’s
progress and have always zealously guarded human liberties
and the rule of law. Having specialised in the legal field, they
champion the cause of victims of violations of fundamental and
legal rights; protect the civil and human rights of the citizens.
They also canvass before the courts that the action of the State
cannot be arbitrary.

Therefore, legal education should also

prepare professionals equipped to meet the new challenges and
dimensions of internationalisation where the nature and
organization of law and legal practice are undergoing a
paradigm shift.

Further, there is need for original and path-

breaking legal research to create new legal knowledge and ideas
that will help meet these challenges in a manner responsive to
the needs of the country and the ideals and goals of our
Constitution. Today, legal education derives its impetus from
the economic, socio-economic and political setup of the society.

34

 A.

Historic perspective

12.3 Legal education plays an important role in promoting
social justice. Education or awareness of laws, characterises the
lawyers as Social Engineers.

Legal education was formally

introduced in 1855 when it was started in Government Hindu
College, Calcutta, Elphinstone College, Madras and Government
Law College, Bombay.
12.4 Felix Frankfurter observed, “In the last analysis, the law is
what the lawyers are. And the law and the lawyers are what the
law schools make them.36”
12.5 The University Education Commission was appointed by
Government of India under the chairmanship of Dr. S
Radhakrishnan, “to report on Indian University Education and
suggest improvements and extensions that might be desirable to
suit the present and future requirements of the country37.” The
Commission in its report submitted in August 1949 inter alia
recommended substantial improvement in legal education.
B.

Constitutional framework

12.6 The Constitution initially laid down the duty of imparting
education on the States by putting the matter pertaining to
education in List II of the Seventh Schedule. But it now forms
part of List III, giving concurrent legislative powers to the Union
and the States.

Legal profession along with the medical and

other professions also falls under List III (Entry 26). However,
36

Letter from Felix Frankfurter to Mr. Rosenwold, (May 13, 1927) cited in Benjamin H.
Barton, The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System (Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2011) 273.
37
Ministry of Education, Government of India, “The Report of the University Grants
Commission” (Dec.1948-Aug.1949), Vol. I (1950), available at : www.academicsindia.com/Radhakrishnan%20Commission%20Report%20of %201948-49.pdf. at page 1.

35

 the Union is empowered to coordinate and determine standards
in institutions for higher education or research and scientific
and technical education besides having exclusive power, inter
alia,

pertaining

to

educational

institutions

of

national

importance, professional, vocational or technical training and
promotion of special studies or research.
12.7 The Supreme Court, taking into account the provisions of
articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution, directed the State
Governments to provide grants-in-aid to the institutions
imparting legal education38.
C.

Reports of previous Law Commissions

12.8 The Law Commission of India, in its 14th Report published
in 1958, titled “Reform of Judicial Administration”, emphasised
on the standard of legal education and portrayed a dismal
picture and lamented the system observing that legal education
was imparted in large number of schools by part time teachers
of mediocre ability and indifferent merits. There was mushroom
growth of law colleges.

Most of the schools had skeleton

libraries. Students were taught how to pass LL.B. examinations
by cramming short summaries published by enterprising
publishers.

Colleges were housed in dingy rooms without

adequate trained staff.

Such institutions were basically fee

collecting centres as there was no institution with proper
facilities. There was no regular attendance of students. Thus,
the law college had been producing half-baked lawyers who did
not even have basic knowledge of law and were considered as
drones and parasites.

38

Prem Chand Jain & Anr. v. R K Chhabra, AIR 1984 SC 981; University of Delhi v. Raj
Singh, AIR 1995 SC 336; and V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1999 SC 1167.

36

 12.9

On the question of the Bar Council’s involvement in the

regulation of legal education, it is worth noting that there has
been some scrutiny given to the issue of what the appropriate
body should be for the governance in higher education. As
mentioned in the 184th Report of the Law Commission, the
composition of the Legal Education Committee may need to be
changed to accommodate specialized and dedicated persons in
the education sector while also ensuring that legal education
remains relevant to rapid developments in legal practice. The
Commission also examined questions relating to standardsetting in legal education, skills and values, globalization and
accreditation, ADR training, adjunct teachers from the Bar and
the

Bench,

processes

for

establishment

of

law

schools,

apprenticeship, etc. However, the suggestions contained in the
184th Report have not been taken forward.
12.10

A similar line of reasoning is found in the National

Knowledge Commission’s Report in 200939 which proposed and
explained the need for an Independent Regulatory Authority in
Higher Education as well as a Standing Committee for Legal
Education with 25 persons representing all stakeholders. As
part of this set-up, the Commission also made a number of
suggestions regarding quality of education, rating systems,
curriculum development, examination system, legal research,
faculty talent, legal education finance, international dimensions
and usage of Information and Communication Technologies.
D. Legal Position
12.11

The Supreme Court, through its decision in the matter

of Bar Council of India v. Board of Management, Dayanand
39

National Knowledge Commission, Report to the Nation 2006-2009, March 2009, at pp. 7981.

37

 College of Law40, surveyed the statutory powers available to BCI
under the provisions of the Advocates Act, as well as the Rules
framed thereunder, and concluded that BCI was concerned with
the standards of the legal profession and legal education in the
country.
12.12

In Prem Chand Jain & Anr. v. R K Chhabra 41 ,

the

Supreme Court emphasised at length the role and responsibility
of University Grants Commission (UGC) vis-à-vis the regulation
of standards of higher education in India.
12.13

The decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of

University of Delhi v. Raj Singh42, is illuminative in this regard.
The Supreme Court held that regulations framed by UGC
prescribing qualifications for teaching staff would override and
prevail over all other legislations in this regard.

UGC’s

regulatory character was succinctly reaffirmed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh43, as
well.
12.14

The BCI is envisaged as a body for regulating the

minimum standards to be maintained by institutions imparting
legal education, and the Rules framed by BCI in exercise of its
powers

under

the

Advocates

Act,

indeed

provide

for

a

comprehensive framework for the evaluation of institutions on
de minimis criteria.

However, a need for the qualitative

improvement of the Bar has been long felt, and has also been
the subject matter of judicial attention in V. Sudeer v. Bar
Council of India 44 . Two measures have been recognised as

40

AIR 2007 SC 1342.
AIR 1984 SC 981.
42
AIR 1995 SC 336.
43
AIR 2005 SC 2026.
44
AIR 1999 SC 1167.
41

38

 imperative for the melioration of the standards of the legal
profession, i.e., introduction of a bar examination as well as
compulsory requirement of apprenticeship under a senior
lawyer prior to admission to the Bar.
12.15 In 1994, in order to check the declining standards of the
legal profession, a High Powered Committee on Legal Education,
headed by Justice A.H.Ahmadi was constituted. This Committee
recommended and reiterated the requirement for apprenticeship
and a bar examination.

The Bar Council of India (Training)

Rules, 1995, were, therefore, framed by BCI in furtherance to
the recommendations of the said Committee, which were struck
down by the Supreme Court in V. Sudeer45.
E.

Conclusion

12.16 The law colleges require transformation in infrastructure
and resources. Library facilities in our law colleges need to be
upgraded, for which resources have to be mobilised.
12.17

Legal education in India should be structured in a

manner where the BCI, along with legal academics may
endeavour to innovate, experiment and compete globally. A
balance should be maintained in order to change the entire
fabric of legal education system in India, keeping in mind the
necessity of globalisation.

45

Ibid.

39

 CHAPTER-XIII
Pre-enrolment Training of Advocates
13.1 Another problem that requires to be highlighted is that
without undergoing any training or facing subordinate courts,
fresh graduates start appearing before the superior courts.
Counsel engaged by litigants do not appear in the court, rather
send raw hands to deal with the matters. While dealing with
such a situation, the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State
of Bihar46, deprecated such practice by observing that an “arji”,
“farji” half-baked lawyer under the label of “proxy counsel”,
without any acquaintance with or authorisation from the
litigant use, abuse or misuse the process of the court under the
false impression that he has a right to waste public time.
13.2 In an unprecedented step, the Supreme Court in In re:
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal 47 , held that conduct of Shri Goyal,
AOR, lending his signature for petty amount without appearing
in court had been reprehensible and not worth pardoning, and
he was censured. The court also put him on probation for a
year.
13.3 In view of above, the Law Commission recommends a
specific clause in section 7(1) of the Advocates Act to provide for
the rule making power of the Bar Council of India for preenrolment training and apprenticeship before the induction of a
person as an advocate.

46
47

(2014) 9 SCC 203.
AIR 2014 SC 850.

40

 CHAPTER-XIV
Prospects of Foreign Law Firms and Lawyers in
India
14.1 In recent years, fast transformation has been experienced
in every field, whether it is social or economic. With the opening
of new vistas, the world is increasingly shrinking. Countries are
becoming more and more inter-dependent. The opening of the
economy to other countries and widening of the international
trade and commerce has brought the dire necessity of reviewing
various municipal laws relating to “ease of doing business” and
other relevant laws which also includes the Advocates Act. The
increase in the quantum of import and export, formation of new
companies and concerns with import of technology and
invitation

to

multi-national

companies

to

establish

their

subsidiary companies in India and have their commercial
establishment here, necessitated the beginning of international
arbitration.

In arbitration matters, very often foreign lawyers

appear on behalf of companies and their establishments in
India from time to time.
14.2 At times, the issue of allowing foreign firms and lawyers
in India and having vice-a-versa arrangement for advocates
practicing law in India in other counties has been raised in
different forums. In this context, sections 17, 29 and 47 of the
Advocates Act require a passionate examination.

In terms of

section 17, a person desirous of taking up the profession of
advocacy is required to be enrolled on the rolls of the advocates
maintained by the State Bar Council. Section 29 visualises that
only the advocates registered under the Advocates Act are
considered to be the recognised class of persons entitled to
practice law. Section 47 relates to reciprocity whereunder the
41

 nationals of any other country may also be admitted as an
advocate on the State roll, if citizens of India duly qualified are
permitted to practice law in such other country.
14.3 In the matters of allowing foreign lawyers and law firms to
practice law in India, the basic objections raised at different
forums over the time is that the law graduates from India are
allowed to practice the profession of law in U.K., USA, Australia
and other countries subject to following their cumbersome
procedure which is very costly also. Further, there are many
restrictions like qualifying tests, prior experience, work permit
etc. which is not contemplated under the Advocates Act in
respect of foreign lawyers who intend to practice in India.
Therefore, issue of allowing entry of foreign law firms and
lawyers without any reciprocal arrangements similar to that of
arrangements prevailing in those foreign countries should not
be entertained.
14.4 An examination of the issue in its correct perspective of
allowing the foreign law firms carrying on its business in India
requires consideration as to how this necessity has arisen.
From the past practices, it can be seen that the foreign law
firms are carrying on consultancy/support services in the field
of protection and management of business and industrial
proprietary rights, and carrying out market survey and market
research.

They also protect their intellectual property rights.

The foreign lawyers usually visit India for giving advices on their
own system of law. The foreign law firms do also come with the
objective of taking part in negotiations, for settling documents
and conducting arbitrations in India.
14.5 International arbitration is growing in India and in almost
all countries across the world.
42

India is a signatory to the

 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which has
opened

up

the

gates

for

many

international

business

establishments based in different parts of the world to come and
set up their own respective business in India. The large number
of Indian companies even reaching out to foreign destination by
mergers, acquisitions or direct investment.

There may be

several transactions in which an Indian company or a person of
Indian origin may enter into transaction with a foreign company
and the laws applicable to such transaction are the laws of the
said foreign country. In this context, seeking legal advice on the
manner in which the foreign law would be applied to said
transaction from a foreign lawyer cannot be considered as
inappropriate.
14.6 Besides the on-going discussions, the issue of foreign law
firms establishing their place of business in India (liaison office)
and related issues have been raised in certain High Courts. The
High Court of Madras in A.K. Balaji v. Government of India48 has
observed, as under:

48

“(i)

Foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practice
the profession of law in India either on the litigation or
non-litigation side, unless they fulfil the requirement
of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of
India Rules.

(ii)

However, there is no bar either in the Act or the Rules
for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India
for a temporary period on a fly in and fly out basis, for
the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in
India regarding foreign law or their own system of law
and on diverse international legal issues.

(iii)

Moreover, having regard to the aim and object of the
International Commercial Arbitration introduced in the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign lawyers

WP No.5614 of 2010 decided on 21.02.2012.

43

 cannot be debarred to come to India and conduct
arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising
out of a contract relating to international commercial
arbitration.
(iv)

The B.P.O. Companies providing wide range of
customised and integrated services and functions to its
customers like word-processing, secretarial support,
transcription services, proof-reading services, travel
desk support services, etc. do not come within the
purview of the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Bar Council
of India Rules. However, in the event of any complaint
made against these B.P.O. Companies violating the
provisions of the Act, the Bar Council of India may
take appropriate action against such erring
companies.”.

14.7 In Lawyers Collective v. Bar Council of India & Ors.49, the
High Court of Bombay quashed the permission granted by the
Reserve Bank of India to foreign law firms to establish their
place of business in India (liaison office) under section 29 of the
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

On the issue as to

whether these foreign law firms could carry on their liaison
activities in India only on being enrolled as advocates under the
Advocates Act, the Court held that the expression “to practice
the profession of law” in section 29 of the Advocates Act is wide
enough to cover the persons practising in litigious matters as
well as persons practising in non-litigious matters. Therefore, to
practice in non-litigious matters in India, the foreign lawyer and
law firms were bound to follow the provisions contained in the
Advocates Act.

14.8 The judgment referred to hereinabove was challenged
before the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. A K Balaji &
Ors.

49
50

50

, wherein the Supreme Court granted leave and

WP No.1526 of 1995 decided on 16.12.2009.
Civil Appeal No.7875-7879 of 2015.

44

 maintained the interim order passed on 4 July 2012, which
reads as under:
“In the meanwhile, it is clarified that Reserve Bank
of India shall not grant any permission to the
foreign law firms to open liaison offices in India
under section 29 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973. It is also clarified that the
expression “to practice the profession of law” under
section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 covers the
persons practicing litigious matters as well as nonlitigious matters other than contemplated in para
63(ii) of the impugned order and, therefore, to
practice in non-litigious matters in India the foreign
law firms, by whatever name called or described,
shall be bound to follow the provisions contained in
the Advocates Act, 1961.”.
14.9 In view of the developments that have taken place, if the
foreign law firms are not allowed to take part in negotiations,
settling up documents and arbitrations in India, it may have a
counter-productive effect on the policy of the government to
make India a hub of International Arbitration. In this regard, it
may be stated that many arbitrations with Indian Judges and
Lawyers as Arbitrators are held outside India, where both
foreign and Indian Law Firms advise their clients. If foreign law
firms are denied entry to deal with arbitrations in India, then
India may lose many of the arbitrations to Singapore, Paris and
London. It may be contrary to the declared policy of the
government and against the national interest. With this in view
and judgement of the High Courts, the Law Commission
considers it necessary to have enabling provisions in the
Advocates Act which will enable the Bar Council of India to
frame rules to recognise and register foreign law firms and
lawyers in India, as and when a decision is taken in this regard,
particularly in view of the reciprocity provisions.

45

 CHAPTER-XV
Need for Defining Misconduct
15.1. The question of creating a conducive environment for the
effective regulation of the profession requires a statutory
framework. This statute provides for the regulator’s powers in
many subtle ways. The specificity of the words employed in the
statute is one such subtle way in which powers and duties are
framed. Neither the Advocates Act nor the Bar Council of India
Rules, defines professional misconduct.

However, the Apex

Court has elucidated on the concept of “misconduct”.
15.2 Misconduct means a wrongful action and not mere error
of judgment. A transgression of some well-established and
definite rule of action, where no discretion is left. It is a
forbidden act, carelessness, an unlawful behaviour or neglect by
which the right of a party has been affected e.g. allegation of
disproportionate asset; misappropriation; and criminal breach
of trust; not working diligently; an action which is detrimental
to the prestige of the institution and acting beyond authority. It
may

be

synonymous

to

an

improper

behaviour

or

mismanagement. It is detrimental to public interest. Misconduct
is to be construed and understood with reference to the subject
matter and context wherein the term occurs taking into
consideration the scope and object of the statute involved.51
15.3 Professional
dishonourable

51

misconduct

conduct,

not

refers

to

disgraceful

befitting

to

the

or

profession

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition; P Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition
1987 at page 821; N.G.Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde AIR 2001 SC 2028, Baldev Singh
Gandhi v. State of Punjab AIR 2002 SC 1124; General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank
of India v. Mohd. Nizamuddin AIR 2006 SC 3290; Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Distt.
Collector, Raigarh AIR 2012 SC 1339; and Vijay Singh v. State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 2840.

46

 concerned.

Legal profession is not a trade or business.

Therefore, it must remain a de-contaminated profession.
Advocates have a duty to uphold the integrity of the profession
and to discourage corruption so that justice may be secured by
the citizenry in a legal manner.52 A lawyer must strictly adhere
to the norms of profession which make him worthy as an officer
of court53. Dignity of the judiciary is to be maintained, failing
which the institution itself will collapse.54 Indulging in practices
of corrupting the judiciary or offering bribe to the Judge 55 ;
retaining money deposited with the advocate for the decree
holder even after execution proceedings 56 ; scandalizing the
Judges 57 ; constant abstention from the conducting of cases;
misappropriation of the amount paid

; attesting forged

58

affidavit 59 ; failure to attend trial after accepting the brief 60 ;
taking money from client in the name of the Judge 61 ; gross
negligence

involving

moral

turpitude

62

;

indecent

cross-

examination63; breach of trust64; conducting fraud and forgery65
by the advocates, have been held to be serious misconduct by
the Supreme Court.
15.4 In light of the above decisions, the Law Commission
considered

and

provided

the

definition

of

“Professional

Misconduct” in the Amendment Bill recommended by it.
52

Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, AIR 2001 SC 2509.
Noratanmal Chouraria v. M R Murli & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 2440.
54
In Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1995 SC 2348.
55
Shanbhu Ram Yadav Supra.
56
Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1997 SC 1338.
57
Dr. D C Saxena v. Chief Justice of India, AIR 1996 SC 2481.
58
D S Dalal v. State Bank of India, AIR 1993 SC 1608; and J S Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji
Mohamed Yusuf, AIR 1993 SC 1535.
59
M Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, AIR 1985 SC 28.
60
S J Chaudhary v. State, AIR 1984 SC 618.
61
Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 1012.
62
In the matter of P an Advocate, AIR 1963 SC 1313; and V P Kumaravelu v. the Bar Council
of India, AIR 1997 SC 1014.
63
Shiv Narain Jafa v. The Hon’ Judges of the High Court, Allahabad, AIR 1953 SC 368.
64
Bapurao Pakhiddey v. Suman Dondey, AIR 1999 SC 916.
65
LC Goyal v. Nawal Kishore, (1997) 11 SCC 258; and Devender Bhai Shanker Mehta v.
Ramesh Chandra Vithal Dass Seth, AIR 1992 SC 1388; See also: Dr. Elbe Peter, MDS,
LL.B, DCR, Professional misconduct of lawyers in India.
53

47

 CHAPTER – XVI
The Relevance of Framework of Regulation of
Legal Profession in the United Kingdom
16.1 After undertaking a review of the regulatory framework of
legal

profession

in

2002,

based

66

on

the

report

titled

“Competition and Regulation in the Legal Services Market”,67 the
Department

of

Constitutional

Affairs

(UK

Government)

concluded that the regulatory framework for legal services in
England and Wales was out-dated, inflexible, over-complex and
insufficiently accountable or transparent. 68 As a result, Sir
David Clementi was appointed on 24th July 2003, to conduct a
Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in
England and Wales with the terms of reference being:


“To consider what regulatory framework would best
promote competition, innovation and the public and
consumer interest in an efficient, effective and
independent legal sector.



To recommend a framework which will be independent in
representing the public and consumer interest,
comprehensive,
accountable,
consistent,
flexible,
transparent, and no more restrictive or burdensome than
is clearly justified.69

16.2 As a result of the Clementi Report and implementation of
the recommendations made therein, the Legal Services Act
2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2007) came into force
which

liberalises

and

regulates

66

the market for legal

In the Public Interest?, A Consultation following the Office of Fair Trading's report on
Competition in Professions, A Lord Chancellor’s Department Consultation paper, July
2002.
67
A report following the consultation "In the public interest?", July 2003. Available at
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/general/oftreptc
onc.htm (Last Accessed 3rd November, 2016).
68
Ibid.
69
Sir David Clementi, “Review of The Regulatory Framework For Legal Services In England
And Wales Final Report”, (Clementi Report) Foreword, at p.1.

48

 services in England

and

Wales

so

as

to

encourage

more competition and to provide a new route for consumer
complaints. Accordingly a Legal Services Board, an independent
statutory body, was established under the Act 200770, which is
responsible for overseeing legal regulators in England and
Wales. It is independent of government and the legal profession,
and is the oversight regulator for eight separate bodies, named
as ‘Approved Regulator’’71 in the Act, 2007.
16.3 While the Act, 2007 also deals with other kinds of legal
practitioners such as Legal Executives, Licensed Conveyancers,
Patent Attorneys, Trade Mark Attorneys, Law Costs Draftsmen
as well as Notaries. For the present purposes, the regulatory
mechanisms for Solicitors and Barristers have only been
analysed.
16.4 The enactment of the Act, 2007 has ushered in a new era
of regulation of legal profession in the United Kingdom which
has recognised the short-comings of ‘self-regulation’ and has
shifted

its

focus

towards

the

interests

of

consumers.

Emphasising on the need for independence of legal profession
from outside influences (especially government) as well as the
call for a regulatory framework which was independent in
representing the public and consumer interest, a statutory
oversight body (Legal Services Board – in short, LSB) has been
created for consistent oversight of Front-line regulators (who are
responsible for regulation of their own professionals). Being an
Independent Statutory body, the provisions of the Act, 2007
have ensured that the Board comprises of a lay majority as a
whole with the Chairman of the Board also mandated to be a lay
member.
70
71

For

the

protection

of

Consumer

interests,

an

Section 2, Legal Services Act, 2007.
Section 20, Legal Services Act, 2007; Body designated as an approved regulator by Part I of
Schedule 4 or Part 2 of the Schedule (or both).

49

 independent arm of the LSB such as Consumer Panel has been
established which acts as an advisory body to the LSB so as to
help them make decisions that are shaped around the needs of
users.
16.5 With regard to the functioning of the front-line regulators
for solicitors and barristers, it has been made imperative that
the representative and regulatory functions are separated and
distinguished. For the same purpose, the Law Society acts as a
representative

body

for

solicitors

whereas,

the

Solicitors

Regulation Authority (in short, SRA) discharges the regulatory
functions. While acting as an independent regulatory arm of the
Law society, the composition of the Board of SRA is diluted
wherein out of the 15 members, seven members are solicitors
and remaining eight are lay persons out of whom one is
appointed as the Chairman. Such a setup is inclusive in nature
wherein through dilution in the composition of the board,
specific problems in regard to disciplinary action against
lawyers by lawyers are avoided. The same principle has also
been applied with regard to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal,
whose composition includes both solicitor members as well as
persons who are neither solicitors nor barristers (lay members).
Similar set up also exists for the regulation of barristers wherein
the Bar Council takes care of the representative functions and
Bar Standard Board along with Professional Conduct Committee
and Disciplinary Tribunals discharge the regulatory obligations
as prescribed under the Act, 2007. Similar ratios of practicing
barristers as well as lay members are ensured in Professional
Conduct

Committee

whereby

a

lay

member

majority

is

mandated. In regard to the composition of the Disciplinary
Tribunals for barristers, along with the presence of a barrister
(having experience of not less than seven years), the presence of

50

 a Judge (as Chairman) and at least one lay member is
mandated.
16.6 It is important to note here that in India, the Ministry of
Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs floated a draft bill
namely Legal Practitioners (Regulations and Maintenance of
Standards in Professions, Protecting the Interest of Clients and
Promoting the Rule of Law) Bill, 2010, which intended to
establish a Legal Services Board on the lines of the Legal
Services Board in UK suitable in the Indian situation. However,
no further progress has been reported on the draft Bill.

51

 CHAPTER-XVII
Need of Reviewing Regulatory Mechanism
17.1 There is a dire necessity of reviewing the regulatory
mechanism of the Advocates Act, not only in matters of
discipline and misconduct of the advocates, but in other areas
as well, keeping in view the wide expanse of the legal profession
being involved in almost all areas of life. The very constitution
of the Bar Councils and their functions also require the
introduction of a few provisions in order to consolidate the
function of the bar councils in its internal matters as well. The
globalization of the legal profession has brought forth the issues
of the participation of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms in
Indian legal system.
17.2 With the Bar Council of India creating the All India Bar
Examination Rules, 2010; the Certificate of Practice and
Renewal Rules, 2014 (which now stands repealed), and the
Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, it has
become evident that this basic function has not been performed
adequately. While it is understandable that lawyers in India
constitute an improperly organised group, the inability of the
Bar Councils to even keep a count on the number of advocates
practicing in the country is indicative of the need to expand the
institutional capacity of these authorities.

Regulatory bodies:
17.3 It may be pertinent to compare the composition of
Governing Body of the Bar Council of India with other
institutions like Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
52

 (ICAI), Medical Council of India (MCI), Council of Architects
(CoA), etc. The position of the MCI is that there are 17 elected
representatives of professionals, 53 elected from educational
institutions, 34 Central Government nominees, totaling to 104.
The Council of Architects has 5 elected representatives from
professionals, 5 elected members from educational institutions,
1 Central Government nominee and 35 State Government
nominees. It also contains 5 other nominees, and 2 ex-officio
members (from the Central Government). Thus, they have total
strength of 53.
17.4 So far as the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 is
concerned, it provides that in the Council of the Institute, there
would be not more than 32 persons elected by the members of
the Institute and not more than eight persons nominated by the
Central Government.
17.5 Recently, the Constitution of the Governing Council of the
Indian Law Institute has been changed vide decision dated 8
December 2016 and the number of members of the Governing
Council has been reduced to nearly half; and all members of the
Governing Council will be either nominated or ex-officio. There
is not even a single elected person in the Council.
17.6 Thus, from the above it may be concluded that the
composition of the body should be determined on four
parameters:
(1) The

elected-to-nominated

member

ratio

should

be

determined based on whether elected representatives from
the profession can be expected to function without
excessive bias in favour of their colleagues. There may be
a majority of nominated members if there is a need to
53

 accommodate and have representation of a wide variety of
bodies, governmental or technical. However, the ratio
must at least be loaded with sufficient nominees where
there are essential questions of public interest that
cannot be left to members of the profession itself.
(2) The

professional-to-lay

member

ratio

should

be

determined on similar criteria but with greater emphasis
towards client welfare and interaction with allied fields,
and less emphasis on representation of public bodies.
(3) The identity of the electors and nominators determines
the extent of control exercised by groups and bodies over
a regulator. Nominations indicate direct control and
elections indicate diffused and indirect control. A good
practice would be to split seats across different groups to
accommodate regional and technical knowledge-based
diversity and split seats across bodies so that each body
has a say but does not exercise complete control. For this,
it is necessary to identify all groups that require
representation in the regulatory body and all bodies that
need to be given a share of control over the body.

(4) Where a particular public office or department must be
given representation in the regulatory body, provision may
be made to appoint them ex-officio. However, the body
appointing the office-holder may gain further say in the
regulator’s decisions, depending on the independence of
that office.

17.7 The Commission is of the view that the nominated/coopted members would have a right to participate in all
54

 proceedings and to vote therein except on the issue of removal
of office-bearers of the Councils.
17.8

Further, in relation to regulatory mechanism, it is

necessary to address the mushrooming of bar associations right
from the Taluka level, up to the apex bodies also requires a
regulatory mechanism including their recognition and control
by the bar council.

This is obviously coupled with special

emphasis of not only controlling the advocates but the collective
actions of bar associations that has a local and even a nationwide implication on issues that are concerned with proceedings
of the court and with regard to the organization of lawyers
entering into other fields of activities.

Towards this, the

measures of punishments, the inclusion of other types of
misconducts and the disciplinary control with its effective
mechanism, both reformatory and deterrent, deserves to be
introduced. This has become necessary as the present law is
gradually losing its effectiveness due to lack of appropriate
empowerment.

The standards of professional ethics and

behaviour, the training of lawyers and facets of continuing legal
education are other areas as well that require a passionate
consideration.
17.9

It is with the aforesaid objective in view that the Law

Commission called upon the Bar Council of India to make
available its suggestions in particular and upon having received
the

same,

the

Commission

has

deliberated

upon

the

suggestions that have been received from the stakeholders
throughout the country that the proposal to reform the
Advocates Act has become imperative.
17.10

The

Commission,

therefore,

recommends

that

comprehensive amendment should be brought forth in the
55

 Advocates

Act,

not

only

keeping

in

view

the

present

requirements, but such other requirements that may arise in
future for the better management and regulation of the legal
profession.

The

Advocates

(Amendment)

Bill,

2017

as

recommended by the Law Commission is annexed as AnnexureIII of the Report for consideration of the Central Government.

56

 ANNEXURE -I

info@barcouncilo?ndia org

Phone .011-4922 5000
MANAN KUMAR MISHRA Fax 011-4922 5011
Senior Advocate E-maii
WebSIte 
CHAIRMAN

vmwbarcouncilo?ndiaorg

 

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

(Statutory Body Constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961)
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110 002

Bt?lzl):  lg/2017 (Advisory Committee)

To,  

l'lon?ble Mr. Justice B. S. (lhauhan,
Chairman, Law Commission of India,
?14?h Floor, Hindustan Tin-.e House,

K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Date: 10.03.2017

Subs. Forwarding of suggestions made by the Advisory Committee of the Bar
(?ouncil of India with regard to amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961.

My Lordship,

ihe suggestions made la) the Committee was duly eonsidered by the
mind in its meeting; dated 25?" lehruary, 2017 and l"I March, 2017. The sanie is
heme, lor\\ arded herewith to tour lordship for \'our Lind perusal and eonsideration.

regards the issue ol? orporate law l?irms and sueh other law Firms that are to
he regulated by the Bar tfouneil ol lndia as well as the entry of foreign law firms in
this tield, the Committee was oi the View that in ol the importanee and
seriousness of the matter and keeping in Qeetion 47 ot the Act, 1901

a deeper delil?eratioii and a lurlhei? serious Ionsideration is required on this suhieet.

lliu?, ill lieu ol the tll?ll'xi' one or the: more oi the 
mm he retluired to he held loi' purpose ol the dbti\'t'\'dlLl issue.

\l'ler linali/iiue, the matter respei oi the al\o\e issue, the shall positivelr
send the suggestions relating to it to your lordship the very earliest. would
request \ou to hear with us loi the time being.

our. 
-
EM 5
Me. 1:
(Hanan \lishi'al


liitl.: .Ilnn 

33736 753
 2546i?


an?

 

57

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

1

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

2

No Provision/Clause

(o)

“Misconduct” means and includes an act of a legal
practitioner whose conduct is found to be in breach of
or wanting in observance of the standard of
professional conduct or etiquette prescribed by the
Rules framed under Section 49(1)I of the Act or his
conduct is a disqualification under Section 24A of the
Act.

(p)

Electoral college means and consists of:-

3
(1)
3(2)

(a)

The Chairmen of all the State Bar Councils or
their nominee members; and

(b)

One member elected by each State Bar Council
to be a member of electoral college.

State Bar Council
No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(a)

No suggestion received in this regard

No Change

58

 Section
(b)

Present ACT
in the case of a State Bar Council with an (b)
electorate not exceeding five thousand, fifteen
members, in the case of a State Bar Council with
an electorate exceeding five thousand but not
exceeding ten thousand, twenty members, and in
the case of the State Bar Council with an
electorate exceeding ten thousand, twenty-five
members, elected in accordance with the system
of proportional representation by means of the
single transferable vote from amongst advocates on
the electoral roll of the State Bar Council.

No Provision/Clause

(c)

Proposed Amendments
in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate
not exceeding five thousand, eleven members, in the
case of a State Bar Council with an electorate
exceeding five thousand but not exceeding fifteen
thousand, fifteen members, and in the case of the
State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding fifteen
thousand,
twenty-one
members,
elected
in
accordance with
the
system of proportional
representation by means of the single transferable vote
from amongst advocates on the electoral roll of the
State Bar Council after undertaking the process of
verification of certificate and place of practice of
advocates under the relevant Rules.
Co-option of senior and experienced members:In every Bar Council, in addition to the elected
members, three designated senior advocates with at
least 35 years of practice from the bar and in case of
non-availability of such senior advocates, three
advocates having experience of a minimum of thirty
five years shall be co-opted as members of the Council
by the elected members, soon after the declaration of
result of elections, but prior to the elections of the
Office Bearers.
In the matter of co-option if there is no unanimity
amongst the elected members, co-option shall be by
decision of the majority of the members.

59

 Section
Proviso
to
Section
3(2)(b)

Present ACT
Provided that as nearly as possible one-half of such
elected members shall subject to any rules that may be
made in this behalf by the Bar Council of India, be
persons who have for at least ten years been advocates
on a State roll, and in computing the said period of ten
years in relation to any such person, there shall be
included any period during which the person has been an
advocate enrolled under the Indian Bar Councils Act,
1926 (38 of 1926).”

Proposed Amendments
Provided that as nearly as possible one half of such elected
members shall subject to any rules that may be made in this
behalf by the Bar Council of India, be persons who have for
at least twenty years been advocates on a State roll and
who are in practice as per Verification Rules.

3(3)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

3(4)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

3(5)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

3(6)

Nothing in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall affect the
representation of elected members in any State Bar
Council
as constituted immediately before
the
commencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973
(60 of 1973), until that State Bar Council is reconstituted
in accordance with the provision of this Act.

Nothing in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall affect the
representation of elected members in any State Bar Council
as constituted immediately before the commencement of this
amendment, until that State Bar Council is reconstituted
in accordance with the provisions of this Amendment Act
of 2017.

Bar Council of India
(a)
No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(b)

No suggestion received in this regard

4
(1)

No Change

60

Note:- Verification Rules mean Bar Council of India
Certificate and place of Practice(Verification) Rules, 2015
and amendments made thereto from time to time.

 Section
(c)

Present ACT
one member elected by each State Bar Council (c)
from amongst its members.

Proposed Amendments
one member elected by each State Bar Council from
amongst its members having at least 35 years of
experience at the Bar.
Provided that where the number of Advocates
enrolled in any Bar Council is less than five
thousand, a cluster of not more than three Bar
Councils of such nearby State Bar Councils shall be
made and representation to the Bar Council of
India from such cluster shall be made by rotation
from amongst the Bar Councils within the cluster,
as per the Rules prescribed in this behalf by Bar
Council of India.

61

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

No Provision/Clause

(d)

Three members co-opted by the members specified in
clauseI in the following manner: (i)
Two Senior Advocates whose names have been on
any State roll for at least 35 years.
Provided that in case of non-availability of Senior Advocates
with 35 years of standing at the Bar, the senior Advocates
with lesser length of practice shall be co-opted as prescribed
under the Rules of Bar Council of India.
(ii)
One Senior Advocate whose name has been on any
State roll for at least 35 years and having a
minimum of 5 years experience as member of Bar
Council of India.
Provided that where there are more than one such senior
Advocates with 5 years of experience as member of Bar
Council of India are available, then the Senior Advocate with
longer experience as the member, Bar Council of India, shall
be co-opted.
Provided further that where no Senior Advocate with 5 years
experience as member, Bar Council of India is available, any
other Advocate with 35 years of practice with 5 years of
experience as member of Bar Council of India shall be coopted.
In the matter of co-option, in absence of unanimity amongst
the elected members, co-option shall be by decision of the
majority of the members.
The term of members of Bar Council of India mentioned in
this clause(d) and I of this sub-section shall be six years
from the date of publication of result of such members.
Bar Council of India shall co-opt its members under clause
(d) and hold elections under clause I of this sub-section
under this clause within a period of 6 months from the date
of commencement of this amendment Act of 2017.

62

 Section

Present ACT
(e)

Proposed Amendments
One member whose name has been on the State roll
for atleast 35 years and who has been a member of the
Bar Council of India for at least 5 years shall be coopted by the electoral college.
Provided that where there are more than one such
Advocate with 5 years of experience as member of Bar
Council of India are available, then the senior amongst
them shall be co-opted.
The co-option of such member shall be held as
provided under the Rules in this regard.

4(1A)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

4(2)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard.

4(2A)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard.
But in place of Amendment Act 1977, 2017 shall be
substituted.

Proviso
to
Section
4(2A)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard.
But in place of Amendment Act 1977, 2017 shall be
substituted.

4(3)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

5

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

Functions of State Bar Councils(a)
No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

6
(1)

63

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

(b)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(c)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(d)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(dd)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(e)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ee)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(eee)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(f)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard
To provide for the elections of its members as prescribed
under the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India in this
regard.

(g)

No Change

(gg)

to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with (gg)
the directions given under clause (i) of sub-section
(1) of section 7;]

(h)

No Change

to visit and inspect Universities and Institutions
imparting Legal Education in accordance with the
directions given under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of
section 7;

No suggestion received in this regard

64

 Section

Present ACT
(i)

Proposed Amendments

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

No Provision/Clause

(j)

6(2)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

6(3)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

Functions of Bar Council of India(b)
No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(c)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(d)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(e)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(f)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(g)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

7
(1)

65

to
organize
compulsory
Continuing
Legal
Education
either directly
or
through
Bar
Associations, Bar Council of India Trust, the State
Bar Councils, Lawyers’ Society and any institute of
repute recognized by Bar Council of India for this
purpose in accordance with the rules made in this
behalf.

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

(h)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(i)

to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall (i)
be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate
and for that purpose to visit and inspect
Universities [or cause the State Bar Councils to
visit and inspect Universities in accordance with
such directions as it may given in this behalf];

(ia)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ib)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ic)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(j)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(k)

No Change

To provide for elections of its members and co-option in state
Bar Councils and Bar Council of India.

(l)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(m)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

66

to recognize Universities and Institutions imparting
Legal Education leading to a degree in law,
constituting a qualification for enrolment as an
advocate, and for that purpose to visit and inspect
Universities and Institutions imparting Legal
Education [or cause the State Bar Councils to visit
and inspect Universities and Institutions imparting
Legal Education in accordance with such directions
as it may given in this behalf];

 Section

Present ACT
No Provision/Clause

(n)

67

Proposed Amendments
to provide for pre-enrolment training and
apprenticeship of a person who has obtained
degree in a law course, which is recognized as a
qualification for enrolment as an advocate under
the Act, for a period of one year.

(o)

to provide for Verification of Certificates or Places
of Practice of the Advocates; either directly or
through State Bar Council

(p)

to prescribe conditions for enrolment of persons as
advocate with a State Bar Council including the
one as to clearing of All India Bar Examination of
the Bar Council of India as may be prescribed by
the Rules.

(q)

to provide for, organize and monitor compulsory
Continuing Legal Education through Bar Council of
India Trust, a society or association recognized by
it and as prescribed by guidelines/rules.

(r)

to provide mechanism for resolving election
disputes in relation to any election to Bar Council
of India and State Bar Council.

(s)

to provide common entrance test for admission in
the institutions imparting legal education in the
country.

(t)

to register Indian and Foreign Law Firms and to
regulate such Firms.

(u)

to regulate Foreign Lawyers registered and allowed
to practice in India under the Rules prescribed by
it.

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments
(v) to register and regulate Bar Associations or other
Associations, Societies, Trusts of Advocates
operating within the territory of India.
(w)

to register and regulate the Law Firms, Limited
Liability
Partnerships
operating
within
the
territorial jurisdiction of the State Bar Council.

7(3)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

7(3)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

7(4)

No Provision/Clause

May create or recognize any Trust under Indian Trust
Act, 1882 or Society registered under Society
Registration Act in aid of carrying out the functions
mentioned in this Section.

7A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

Term of office of Members of State Bar Council.—The
term of office of an elected member of a State Bar Council
(other than an elected member thereof referred to in
section 54) shall be five years from the date of
publication of the result of his election:

Term of office of Members of State Bar Council.—The term of
office of an elected member of a State Bar Council shall be
six years from the date of publication of the result of his
election:

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

8

8A

68

 Section
9(1)

Present ACT
A Bar Council shall constitute one or more disciplinary
committees, each of which shall consist of three persons
of whom two shall be persons elected by the Council from
amongst its members and the other shall be a person coopted by the Council from amongst advocates who
possess the qualifications specified in the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 and who are not members of the
Council, and the senior-most advocate amongst the
members of a disciplinary committee shall be the
Chairman thereof.

69

Proposed Amendments
Constitution of disciplinary committees by the Bar
Council of India and State Bar Council.
In the case of
(a)

Bar Council of India, the Committee shall
comprise of three members comprising a retired
High Court Judge who shall be the Chairperson of
the Committee, one Member nominated by the
Council from amongst its members and one
advocate or Senior Advocate to be nominated by
the Council.

(b)

State Bar Council, the Committee shall comprise of
three members comprising a retired District Judge
who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee,
one Member nominated by the Council from
amongst its members and one advocate or Senior
Advocate to be nominated by the Council.

(c)

The Bar Council shall constitute one or more
disciplinary committees each of which shall
consist of 3 persons of whom, in the case of Bar
Council of India would be a retired High Court
Judge and in the case of State Bar council a retired
District Judge. One person shall be nominated by
the Council from amongst its member and the
third shall be a person nominated by the respective
Council from amongst Senior Advocates or an
Advocate on the roll of the Council for 25 years.

 Section
9(2)

Present ACT
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), Deleted
any disciplinary committee constituted prior to the
commencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1964,
(21 of 1964) may dispose of the proceedings pending
before it as if this section had not been amended by the
said Act.

Proposed Amendments

9A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

10

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

10A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

10B

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

11

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

12

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

13

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

70

 Section
14

Present ACT
Proposed Amendments
Election to Bar Councils not to be questioned on certain Dispute as to election to Bar Councils:grounds.—No election of a member to a Bar Council shall
be called in question on the ground merely that due (1)
Any dispute as to the election to the Bar Council
notice thereof has not been given to any person entitled
of India or the State Bar Councils including
to vote threat, if notice of the date has, not less than
election of office bearers shall be referred to the
thirty days before that date, been published in the Official
committees, specially constituted for this purpose
Gazette.
by the Bar Council of India prior to election.
Provided that No election of a member to a Bar
Council shall be called in question on the ground
merely that due notice thereof has not been given
to any person entitled to vote threat, if notice of
the date has, not less than thirty days before that
date, been published in the Official Gazette.
(2)

The Committee referred to in Sub-Section-1 shall
comprise (a) in case of Bar Council of India a
retired Supreme Court Judge as its Chairman and
Chairmen of two State Bar Councils as its
Members; and (b) in case of State Bar Councils, a
retired High Court Judge as its Chairman and two
Members of the Bar Council of India other than one
hailing from the concerned State. The Committee
shall have such powers as may be prescribed under
the Rules and shall have powers to pass any
interim order.

15

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

16

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

17

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

71

 Section

Present ACT
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17, any
person whose name is entered as an advocate on the roll
of any State Bar Council may make an application in the
prescribed form to the Bar Council of India for the
transfer of his name from the roll of that State Bar
Council to the roll of any other State Bar Council and, on
receipt of any such application the Bar Council of India
shall direct that the name of such person shall without
the payment of any fee, be removed from the roll of the
first mentioned State Bar Council and entered in the roll
of the other State Bar Council and the State Bar Councils
concerned shall comply with such direction:

Proposed Amendments
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17, any
person whose name is entered as an advocate on the roll of
any State Bar Council may make an application in the
prescribed form to the Bar Council of India for the transfer of
his name from the roll of that State Bar Council to the roll of
any other State Bar Council and, on receipt of any such
application the Bar Council of India shall direct that the
name of such person shall upon payment of such transfer
fee as may be prescribed by the rules, be removed from the
roll of the first mentioned State Bar Council and entered in
the roll of the other State Bar Council and the State Bar
Councils concerned shall comply with such direction:

Proviso
to
Section
18(1)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

18(2)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

19

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

20

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

21

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

22

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

23

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

18(1)

72

 Section
24(1)

Present ACT
No Provision/Clause

(f)

73

Proposed Amendments
he has paid in respect of the enrolment, stamp
duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 and an enrolment fee payable to the
State Bar Council as may be prescribed by the
Rules.

(g)

He has paid the professional development fee
chargeable under the Rules of Bar Council of India
and the State Bar Council.

(h)

he clears the All India Bar Examination or any
other test prescribed by Bar Council of India and
fulfils such other conditions as may be specified in the
rules made by the Bar Council of India under its
Rules;

 Section
24A

Present ACT
Disqualification for enrolment.—

Proposed Amendments
Disqualification for enrolment.— No person shall be
admitted as an advocate on a State roll—

(b) No person shall be admitted as an advocate on a
State roll—

(a)

if he is convicted of an offence involving moral
turpitude;
if he has been dismissed or removed from
employment or office by the State or any State
Undertaking or any State Aided or Statutory Body
or Corporation on the charge of misconduct;
if he has been convicted of contempt of court
subject to any order or decision of Court of
competent jurisdiction otherwise.

if he is convicted of an offence involving (b)
moral turpitude;
(b)
if he is convicted of an offence under the
provisions of the Untouchability (Offences)
(c)
Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(c)
if he is dismissed or removed from
employment or office under the State on any
charge involving moral turpitude.
Explanation.—In this clause, the expression “State” shall
Explanation.—In this clause, the expression “State” shall have the meaning assigned to it under Article 12 of the
have the meaning assigned to it under Article 12 of the Constitution:]
Constitution:]
(a)

Provided that the disqualification for enrolment as
aforesaid shall cease to have effect after a period of two
years has elapsed since his [release or dismissal or, as
the case may be, removal].
(2)

Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to
a person who having been found guilty is dealt
with under the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958).]

25

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

26

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

26A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

74

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

27

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

28

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

29

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

30

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

31

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

32

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

33

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

34

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar
Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll
has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it
shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary
committee.

Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar
Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll
has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall
refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. The
decision in this regard shall be taken by the concerned
Bar Council within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of this complaint.

35(1)

The complaint to the State Bar Council shall be in proper
format accompanied with the prescribed fee under the
Rules of the State Bar Councils.

75

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

35(1A)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

35(2)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

35(3)

(a)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(b)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(c)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(d)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

No Provision/Clause

76

(e)

impose such fine as it may deem fit, proportionate
to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the
advocate, subject to the maximum limit of Rs.3
lacs and cost of the proceeding;

(f)

award a fair and reasonable compensation of such
amount, subject to the maximum of Rs.5 lacs as it
may deem fit, payable to the person aggrieved, if
any, by the misconduct of the concerned advocate.

(g)

impose special and exemplary costs subject to the
maximum of Rs.2 lacs on the complainant in case,
the complaint is found to be vexatious or frivolous
or on the respondent-advocate in case he is found
to have been un-cooperative in the disciplinary
proceedings under the Act.

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

35(4)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

35(5)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

35(6)

No Provision/Clause

During the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding in the
complaints of grave misconduct, the Bar Council of India
and State Bar Council as the case may be, if, it deems fit
and proper may suspend the advocate from practice, but,
no such suspension shall be made without the prior
recommendation of concerned Disciplinary Committee.

35A

No Provision/Clause

Prohibition on the boycotts or abstention from work –
(1)

No association of advocates or any member of the
association either individually or collectively shall
boycott or abstain from courts work or cause
obstruction in any form in court’s functioning during
court working hours in court premises nor shall
individually or collectively give a call for such boycott
or abstinence from work during court hours.

(2)

Violation of this clause shall be treated as misconduct
and shall be liable for disciplinary action as
contemplated under the Act and Rules.

36

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

36A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

77

 Section
36B(1)

Present ACT
The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall (a)
dispose of the complaint received by it under section 35
expeditiously and in each case the proceedings shall be
concluded within a period of one year from the date of the
receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the
proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, as
the case may be, failing which such proceedings shall (b)
stand transferred to the Bar Council of India which may
dispose of the same as if it were a proceeding withdrawn
for inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 36.

(c)

Proposed Amendments
The State Bar Council shall dispose of the complaint
received by it under section 35 expeditiously and in
each case the proceeding shall be initiated by the
concerned Bar Council within a period of 6
months from the date of receipt of the complaint.
The proceeding initiated either on the complaint or
Suo-Motu shall be completed within a period of one
year from the date of initiation subject to
extension for a maximum period of one year by the
Bar Council of India, for the reason to be recorded
in writing.
(i)

(ii)

In case the final decision whether or not to
initiate the proceeding within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the
complaint is not taken by the State Bar
Council
OR
When the proceedings are initiated, but not
completed by the disciplinary committee
within a period of one year or extended
period as the case may be,
such complaint or the proceeding shall stand
transferred to the Bar Council of India, which
may dispose of the same as if it were a
proceeding withdrawn for inquiry under subsection (2) of section 36.

78

 Section

36B(2)

37(1)

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments
In case of a transfer of proceedings to Bar Council of
India, under the provisions of this section, the State Bar
Council shall be required to pay three-fourth of the
amount received from the complainant at the time of
filing the complaint.

No Provision/Clause

The memo of appeal shall be in proper format
accompanied with the prescribed fee under the Rules of
the Bar Council of India.

No Provision/Clause

38

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

39

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

40

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

41

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

42

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

42A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

43

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

44

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

79

 Section
45

Present ACT
Penalty for persons illegally practising in courts and
before other authorities.-Any person who practises in any
court or before any authority or person, in or before
whom he is not entitled to practise under the provisions
of this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months.

46.

Omitted by Act 70 of 1993 w.e.f. 26.12.1993

46A

No Change

Proposed Amendments
Penalty for persons illegally practising in courts and before
other authorities.-Any person who practises in any court or
before any authority or person, in or before whom he is not
entitled to practise under the provisions of this Act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three
years and with fine, which may extend to one lakh and
this shall be in addition to penalty imposed under any
other law for the time being in force.

No suggestion received in this regard

80

 Section
46B

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments
Financial assistance to all the Advocates and/or their
families in need –

No Provision/Clause

(1)

The Central Government shall cause the printing of
welfare stamps to be affixed on every Vakalatnama,
Power of Attorney, Agreements for Litigation,
Affidavits, documents relating to consultation and
other similar instruments, called by whatever name,
but, involving service of advocates. The sale proceeds
of such stamps shall be utilized for creation of corpus,
which in turn shall be used for initiation and
maintenance of various schemes for the assistance,
aid, welfare and benefit of practicing advocates
and/or their families in the manner prescribed under
the relevant Rules. The said corpus shall be managed
and maintained by the Central Government and shall
be exclusively utilized for the purpose indicated.
The instruments referred to above in this sub-Section
shall be treated as incomplete unless they are affixed
with the welfare stamps.

(2)

The fund and schemes referred to in Sub-Section-(1)
shall be in addition to the schemes evolved by the
State Governments for the benefit and welfare of the
advocates

47

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

48

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

48A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

81

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

48AA

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

48B

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

49(1)

(a)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ab)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ac)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ad)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ae)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(af)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ag)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(ah)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(b)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(c)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

82

 Section
(d)

Present ACT
the standards of legal education to be observed by (d)
universities in India and the inspection of
universities for that purpose;

Proposed Amendments
the standards of legal education to be observed by
universities in India and the inspection of Universities
and Institutions imparting Legal Education for that
purpose;

(e)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(f)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(g)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(gg)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(h)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(i)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

83

 Section

Present ACT
No Provision/Clause

(j)

(ia)

No Change

Proposed Amendments
to provide for, organize and monitor compulsory
Continuing Legal Education for Advocates or class
of Advocates either directly or through Bar Council
of India Trust.

(ib)

to make rules to regulate the Indian Law Firms
operating in more than one State.

(ic)

to register and regulate Foreign Law Firms as
prescribed under this Act.

(id)

to register and regulate the Bar Associations,
Trusts, Societies of Advocates operating in more
than one State.

No suggestion received in this regard

49(2)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

49A(1)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

49A(2)

(a)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(b)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(c)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(d)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

84

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

(e)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(f)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

(g)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

No Provision/Clause

(h)
To carry
Advocates.

49A(3)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

49A(4)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

49A(5)

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

50

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

51

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

52

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

53

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

54

No Change

Repealed

85

out

Welfare

Schemes

for practicing

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

55

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

56

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

57

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58A

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58AA

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58AB

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58AC

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58AD

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58AE

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58AF

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

58AG

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

86

 Section

Present ACT

Proposed Amendments

58B

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

59

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard

60

No Change

No suggestion received in this regard
*****

87

 ANNEXURE – II

Analysis of Responses Received by Law
Commission of India
Based on the facts in the matter of Mahipal Singh Rana,72
the Apex Court highlighted the dismal state of the regulatory
mechanism governing lawyers with emphasis on an urgent need
to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with the
regulatory mechanism for the legal profession and other
incidental issues, in consultation with all concerned.73
Consequently, the Court requested the Law Commission
of India to go into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of
legal profession and submit a report on the same. In light of the
above direction, the 21st Law Commission of India issued a
notice on 29th August 2016, inviting comments on “the need for
reform in regulation of legal profession”. In response to the
notice, 136 responses have been received, out of which 79 are
from judges; 10 are from Bar Council(s) and Bar Associations;
16 are from Lawyers; 6 from Government Lawyers and Officials;
7 are from academics, research organisations and other
organisations; and 18 from others.
At the very inception, the general tenor of the comments
received point out the lack of defined regulatory objectives and
principles in the Advocates Act itself. Although the provisions of
the Act do provide for the basic regulation of legal profession
throughout its scheme, it has been observed that a set of
defined objectives and guiding principles would do better in
regard to the interpretation of the Act with the regulatory
72
73

Supra Note 5.
Ibid. at p. 52.

88

 framework in mind. As the regulatory mechanism for legal
profession in India still abides by the principles of ‘selfregulation’, overwhelming number of responses point out the
failure of the existing mechanism and hence have realised the
need for urgent reform required. In regard to the responses
regarding specific provisions, a number of responses have
highlighted the existence of faulty/unsatisfactory definitions
such as the definition of advocate (which does not extend to the
law firms, partnerships, body corporate etc.). Additionally, the
general tenor of the responses have highlighted that at present,
there exists no definition of professional or other misconduct
which has resulted in the arbitrary usage of Section 35
(Punishment of advocates for misconduct). It is important to
point out here that changes to definition will also result in
changes in the accompanying provisions such as maintenance
of rolls of advocates (to include rolls of law firms, partnerships,
corporate entities etc.).
For the ease of access to the list of State Bar Councils as
well as to forgo the necessity of making amendments to the
Advocates Act every time a new State comes into existence, a
list of the State Bar Councils in the form of a schedule has been
suggested. Moreover, a number of responses have highlighted
the need for stricter requirements regarding the eligibility of
members to be elected in the State Bar Councils as well as the
Bar Council of India. Additionally, apart from lawyers, to dilute
the ‘self-regulatory’ mechanism in place, a number of responses
have suggested the need to change the composition of Bar
Councils to include individuals outside of the legal profession.
In regards to the functions performed by the State Bar Councils
as well as the Bar Council of India, the general tenor of
responses highlight the need for reform in relation to Nation
Entrance Tests, Continuing Education Schemes, Apprenticeship
89

 Programs as well as concerns regarding

inspection and

approval of law universities across the country. Some responses
have also highlighted the lack of welfare schemes for advocates
due to paucity of funds received by the State Bar Councils for
the

same.

Some

specific

responses

also

point

out

the

mushrooming of Bar Associations thereby urging the need to
regulate the same.
While

dealing

with

the

provisions

regarding

the

establishment of disciplinary committees for regulating the
conduct of lawyers, a large of number of responses have
highlighted corrupt practices within the lawyer fraternity
thereby giving rise to issues of vested interests while performing
the disciplinary functions. The responses have hence urged to
make amendments in the Act providing for composition of
disciplinary committees which would include retired judges,
persons from high court registry, civil society members,
bureaucrats, and legal academicians so as to dilute the majority
of lawyers in the disciplinary committees. There have also been
calls to make disciplinary committees as permanent standing
bodies. A number of responses have also pointed out the need
for uniform qualifying examination and thorough verification of
documents and character of a person as a pre-requisite for
enrolment.
Moreover, to give effect to the observations made in the
Mahipal Singh Rana judgment (supra), the responses have
unanimously agreed with the observation of the Supreme Court
thereby necessitating amendment in section 24A of the
Advocates Act to provide for post-enrolment disqualification.
Also, the responses have suggested increasing the duration of
disqualification (from 2 to 5 years) and have suggested
necessary amendments in the provision to include certificate of
90

 good character an essential before re-enrolment after the
disqualification period. Certain responses have also highlighted
the need for statutory recognition of suspension of right to
practice until advocate purges himself of contempt. A number of
responses have also called for stricter penalties such as fine and
imprisonment for professional or other misconduct and also
pointed out the need for statutory recognition of the power of
the courts and disciplinary committees to pass interim orders
for the same. Additionally, some responses point out the need to
increase the time granted for disposal of disciplinary committee
proceedings because it has not been found to sufficient given
the current capacity of the Bar Councils.
In regard to the power of the Bar Council of India as well
as the High Court to make rules regulating the conduct of
lawyers, responses suggest that there is a need of specific
mention in section 49 I to exclude the jurisdiction of the Bar
Council of India to regulate the conduct the lawyers within the
court thereby giving effect to the Harish Uppal’s judgement
establishing the domain of the High Courts’ to regulate conduct
of lawyers even if has a limited effect on the right to practice. In
reiteration of the Supreme Court’s observation in Mahipal Singh
Rana case, certain responses have agreed that appeal to High
Courts from the State Disciplinary Committees should be made
statutory recognising the existing powers of the High Court as
found under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Other
establishment

general
client

suggestions
forums

and

include
legal

the

need

for

ombudsman

for

protection of client interests. Problems regarding the charging of
exorbitant fees of by advocates have also resulted in responses
urging the need for structuring fee payments as well as capping
and incidence of fee payments. A specific response has also
91

 called for lifting the restriction on advocates for advertising
while highlighting the need for legal profession to adapt to
evolving international best practices.

92

 ANNEXURE-III
THE ADVOCATES (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2017

A

BILL

further to amend the Advocates Act, 1961

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-eighth Year of the
Republic of India as follows:CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
1.
Short title and commencement. (1) This Act may be
called the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2017.
(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different
provisions of this Act.

CHAPTER II
AMENDMENTS TO THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
2.
Amendment of Section 2. In the the Advocates Act,
1961 (25 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Advocates Act),
in section 2, in sub-section(1),(i)

for clause (a), the
substituted, namely:-

following

clause

shall

be

(a) “advocate” means an advocate entered in any roll
under the provisions of this Act and includes an
advocate carrying on practice in law with a law
93

 firm, by whatever name called, and a foreign lawyer
registered under any law in a country outside India
and recognised by the Bar Council of India;”;
(ii)

after clause (b), the following clause shall be inserted,
namely:“(bb) ‘Bar Association’ means the association of
Advocates recognized by the State Bar Council and
includes a district, taluka and town level associations,
whether registered or not, under the Societies
Registration Act (Act No.XXI of 1860);”;

(iii) after clause (g) the following clause shall be inserted,
namely:“(gg) ‘law firm’ means a firm, formed and registered
under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932); or
under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of
2009); or a private or public limited company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of
2013) comprising of an advocate or advocates for
carrying on practice in law and includes law firms
formed and registered under any other law outside
India;”;
(iv) after clause (i), the following clauses shall be inserted,
namely:“(ii) ‘legal services’ includes the rendering of any
assistance or service by an advocate in the
conduct of any case or other legal proceedings on
behalf of a person before any court, tribunal or
any other quasi-judicial body;or giving advice or
assistance to a person on any legal matter;”;
“(iii) ‘misconduct’ includes-an act of an advocate
whose conduct is found to be in breach of or nonobservance of the standard of professional
conduct or etiquette required to be observed by
the advocate; or forbidden act; oran unlawful
behaviour;or disgraceful and dishonourable
conduct; or neglect; or not working diligently and
94

 criminal breach of trust;or any of his conduct
incurring disqualification under section 24A;”
(v)

after clause (k), the following clauses shall be inserted,
namely:“(kk) ‘register of law firms’ means a register of law
firms,(i)
maintained by the Bar Council of India in
respect of a law firm formed under any law
outside India; and,
(ii)
maintained by a State Bar Council in respect of
all law firms formed and registered in India;
(kkk) “scheme” means any scheme framed by the Bar
Council of India or as the case may be by the State
Bar Council, for the purpose of giving effect to any of
the provisions of this Act.”.

3.
Amendment of section 3. In section 3 of the Advocates
Act,(i)
in sub-section (2), for clause (b) and the proviso relating
thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely : “(b) in the case of a State Bar Council, with an electorate not
exceeding five thousand, eleven members; in the case of a
State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding five thousand
but not exceeding fifteen thousand, fifteen members; and in
the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding
fifteen thousand, twenty-one members,(i)

to be elected in accordance with the system of
proportional representation by means of the single
transferable vote from amongst advocates on the
electoral roll of the State Bar Council, after undertaking
the process of verification of certificate and place of
practice of advocates under this Act, and

(ii) from amongst retired judges, senior advocates or an
advocate referred to in sub-clause (ii), eminent persons
from fields other than law and officers of the State
Government to be nominated by the High Court,
95

 and of the total number of members of the State Bar Council of
a State(i)

(ii)

as nearly as may be, one half of such members shall
be elected subject to any rules that may be made in
this behalf by the Bar Council of India from amongst
the advocates carrying on practice in law for at least
ten years;
as nearly as may be the one-third of members shall be
nominated by the High Court from senior advocates
having experience of not less than twenty-five years of
practice and in case of non-availability of senior
advocate, any advocate with such experience, retired
Judges of the High Court, retired district judges.

(iii) the remainder shall be nominated by the High Court
from Select List of eminent persons of the ability,
integrity and standing having professional experience
of not less than twenty-five years in accountancy,
commerce, medical science, management, public
affairs or social science matters, to be provided by the
State Bar Council;
Explanation.- An Advocate shall only be entitled to be a
member of the State Bar Council if he has been in continuous
practice for ten years and has appeared in any court,
Tribunal or any other quasi-judicial body as a lead counsel in
at least twelve cases a year for a continuous period of three
years preceding the year of election or nomination.”;
(ii) after sub-section(4), the following sub-sections shall be
inserted, namely:“(4A) An advocate who has been elected as a member of the
State Bar Council consecutively for two terms shall not be
eligible to contest elections under clause (b) of sub-section(2),
for the ensuing next term of the State Bar Council.
(4B) A Member nominated to the State Bar Council shall not
be eligible for nomination, as such, for more than two terms.”.

96

 4.

Amendment of section 4. In section 4 of the Advocates
Act,–
(i)

in sub-section (1), for clause (c), the following clauses
shall be substituted, namely:“(c) five members to be nominated by rotation every
two years, one each in seriatim from the zones as
specified in the Second Schedule to represent the Bar
Council of the States and Union Territories;
(d) six eminent persons of the ability, integrity and
standing having professional experience of not less
than twenty-five years in accountancy, commerce,
medical science, management, public affairs or social
science matters, to be nominated by the Supreme
Court on the recommendation of a Committee
comprising of a Judge of the Supreme Court,
Chairperson of the Appellate Authority constituted
under section 22A of the Chartered Accountants Act
1949 (38 of 1949) and the Central Vigilance
Commissioner appointed under sub-section (1) of
section 4 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act,
2003 (45 of 2003);”;

(ii)

in sub-section (1A),(a) for the words – “No person”, the words “No person,
except the persons mentioned in clause (d)”, shall
be substituted;
(b) for the words "the proviso", the words "the
Explanation" shall be substituted.

(iii) for sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be
substituted, namely:“(3) The term of office of a member of the Bar Council
of India(a) nominated by the State Bar Council or Bar
Council of the Union territories, as the case may
be, under clause (c) shall be two years from the
date of his nomination;
(b) nominated under clause (d) shall be four
years from the date of assumption of his office:
97

 Provided that every such member shall continue to
hold office as a member of the Bar Council of India
until his successor is nominated.”.
5.

Amendment of section 6. In section 6 of the Advocates
Act,(i)
for clause (gg), the following clause shall be
substituted, namely:“(gg) to visit and inspect Universities and institutions
imparting legal education in accordance with the
directions given under clause (i) of sub-section(1) of
section 7;”;
(ii)
after clause (dd), the following clause shall be
inserted, namely:“(ddd) to provide for the recognition, registration and
regulation of Bar Associations (except the Supreme
Court Bar Association, Association of law firms,
foreign lawyers) including election of its office bearers
from amongst the list of regular practitioners of such
Bar Association situated within its territorial limits
and to make rules, schemes with concurrence of the
Bar Council of India to secure their orderly growth;”.

6.
Amendment of section 7. In sub-section (1) of section 7
of the Advocates Act,(i) in clause (i), for the word “Universities”, wherever it
occurs, the words “Universities and institutions imparting
legal education” shall respectively be substituted;
(ii) after clause (k), the following clauses shall be inserted,
namely: “(l) to provide for legal services to the persons belonging to
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, Other
Backward Classes, women, differently abled persons,
victims of social unrest, natural calamities, victim of
diseases impacting the social acceptability, and needy
98

 persons and for spreading legal
awareness amongst the people;

literacy,

legal

(m) to frame schemes achieving the objectives mentioned
in clause (l) and to generate funds for the same by way
of securing aid from the Government or nongovernment organization engaged in social work;
(n)

to
provide
for
pre-enrolment
training
and
apprenticeship to a person who has obtained from a
recognised institution degree in law for a period not
exceeding one year;

(o)

to provide
advocates;

(p)

to provide for recognition and registration of law firms
and conditions subject to which they may practice
law, and other legal services based Bar Associations or
law firms and foreign lawyers, if any;

(q)

to make rules for verification of certificates of
Advocates
and
for
periodical
verification
of
antecedents, conduct, place of practice of Advocates;
and to make a data based web-portal of all the
advocates;

(r)

to make rules for identifying the non-practicing
advocates and barring their voting rights in the
elections to the State Bar Councils, the Bar
Associations and to impose such other conditions as it
may deem fit;

(s)

to provide for supervision over the election of the
members of the State Bar Councils; for issuance of
directions in relation to the conduct of such elections
and for resolution of all elections disputes relating
thereto;

(t)

to make rules to deal with strikes, boycotts
abstentions from courts by the Advocates, provide
suitable measures in this regard and to provide
punishments
including
the
punishment

for

continuing

99

legal

education

for

or
for
for
of

 disqualification from contesting any election of Bar
Councils or of Bar Association for a period of six
years;
(u)

to provide for Entrance Test for admission in the
Institutions imparting legal education in the country
and to provide for measures for improvement of legal
education and to make provision for on-line teachings
for all the law students of the country either directly
or through some charitable Institution;

(v)

to provide for Lawyers Academies and other similar
institutions in each State through State Bar Councils,
or any other organization, Institutions or Agencies for
imparting continuous legal education for Advocates;

(w) to provide for recognition, registration and regulation
of law firms, foreign lawyers;”;
(iii) clauses (l) and (m) shall be re-numbered as clauses (x)
and (y) respectively.
7.
Amendment of section 8. In section 8 of the Advocates
Act, for the words “five years”, the words “six years” shall be
substituted.
8.
Substitution of new section for section 9. For section 9
of the Advocates Act, the following section shall be substituted,
namely:“9. Disciplinary Committees.- A Bar Council shall
constitute one or more disciplinary committees, each of which
shall consist of five persons of whom—
(i)

two persons shall be elected by the Council from amongst
its members;

(ii)

two persons shall be from amongst eminent persons from
fields other than law to be co-opted by the Council; and

(iii) the fifth member shall be a person nominated by the High
Court, in the following manner, namely:-

100

 (a)

in case of the Bar Council of India, fifth member of
such Disciplinary Committees shall be a person,
who has been the Chief Justice or a Judge of a
High Court, as i`ts nominated member;

(b)

in case of a State Bar Council, fifth member of such
Disciplinary Committees shall be a person, who has
been a district judge, as its nominated member;

Provided that the co-opted member shall not be a member of
the Council, in case of Disciplinary Committee constituted by
the Bar Council of India, the Judge shall be the Chairman of
the Committee, and the the members of a Disciplinary
Committee of the State Bar Council, in its first meeting decide
as to who shall preside over as the Chairman of the
Committee.
9.

Substitution of new section for section 9A. For
section 9A of the Advocates Act, the following section
shall be substituted, namely:“9A.Constitution of legal aid committees.-(1) A Bar
Council may constitute one or more legal aid committees
each of which shall consist of seven members, of whom
four shall be persons elected by the Council from amongst
its members and three persons who are not members, to
be co-opted by the Council from the following categories,
namely:-

(i)

former Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court;

(ii)

advocates who possess the qualifications specified
in the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3;

and the Chief Justice or the Judge of the High Court, coopted as member thereof, shall be the Chairman of the
committee.
(2)
The term of office of the members of legal aid
committee shall be five years.”

101

 10. Insertion of new section 9B. After section 9A of the
Advocates Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:9B.

Special Public Grievance Redressal Committee of Bar
Council of India:-

(1)

The Bar Council of India shall constitute a Special
Public Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of
the following members, namely:-

(i)

one former Judge of Supreme Court or Chief
Justice of any High Court as its Chairman;

(ii) two retired Judges of different High Courts as its
members;

(iii) one senior Advocate;
(iv) one member of the Bar Council of India;
(2)

The Special Public Grievance Redressal Committee
shall inquire into any allegation or complaint of
corrupt practices or misconduct against any office
bearer or member of the Bar Council of India in
discharge of his duties as a member of the Council,
which is referred to it by the Council.

(3)

The inquiry report of the Committee shall be placed
before the General Body meeting of the Council and
the Council after considering the report may(i)

accept the findings of the report and lodge a First
Information Report; or
(ii) accept the report and may refer the matter to
initiate a disciplinary proceedings against the
office-bearer or as the case may be a member, or
(iii) not accept the report, for the reasons to be
recorded in writing.”.
11. Amendment of section 10. In sub-section (1) of section
10 of the Advocates Act, after clause (b), the following clause
shall be inserted, namely: “(c) a bar associations affairs committee consisting of five
members, of whom three shall be persons elected by the
Council from amongst its members and two persons who
102

 are not members to be co-opted by the Council one each
from the following categories, namely: (i)
(ii)

former Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court or
retired district Judge;
advocates who possess the qualifications specified
in the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3;

and the Chief Justice or the Judge of the High Court, coopted as member thereof shall be the Chairman of the
committee.”.
12. Amendment of section 10A. In section 10A of the
Advocates Act, after sub-section (4), the following sub-section
shall be inserted, namely: "(4A). A nominated member shall have a right to participate
in all proceedings of the Bar Council and shall be entitled to
vote on any matter except on the issue of removal of any office
bearer of the Council.".
13. Substitution of new section for section 14. For section
14 of the Advocates Act, the following section shall be
substituted, namely:“14. Dispute as to election to Bar Councils:(1) Any dispute as to the election to the Bar Council of
India or the State Bar Council including election of its
office bearers shall be referred to a committee
constituted for this purpose by the Bar Council of India
prior to the conduct of elections:
Provided that an election of a member to a Bar Council
shall not be called in question merely on the ground
that due notice thereof has not been given to any person
entitled to vote thereat, if notice of the date of election
has been published in the Official Gazette, not less than
thirty days before the date of election.
(2) The Committee referred to in sub-section(1) shall be
comprised of (a) in case of Bar Council of India a retired
Judge of the Supreme Court as its Chairman and
103

 Chairmen of two State bar Councils as its Members; and
(b) in case of State Bar Councils, a retired Judge of the
High Court as its Chairman and two Members of the
Bar Council of India of whom one Member shall be a
person from the other State.
(3) The Committee shall have powers to pass any interim
order and such other power as may be prescribed.".
14. Amendment of section 15. In sub-section (2) of section
15 of the Advocates Act, after clause (j), the following clause
shall be inserted, namely:“(ja) the form in which complaint shall be made to the
State Bar Council and fees payable therewith;”.
15. Substitution of new section for section 19. For section
19 of the Advocates Act, the following section shall be
substituted, namely:“19. State Bar Councils to send copies of rolls of advocates
to Bar Council of India.

Every State Bar Council shall send to the Bar Council of
India a copy of the roll of advocates prepared by it for the
first time under this Act and shall thereafter communicate
to the Bar Council of India all alterations in, the additions
to, any such roll, electronically, as soon as the same has
been made within a period not later than seven days.
16. Amendment of section 22. After sub-section (2) of
section 22 of the Advocates Act, the following sub-section shall
be inserted, namely: “(3) The State Bar Council shall maintain an electronic
data base of all the advocates on its roll containing such
information as may be prescribed; and it shall keep
updating it, as and when any change takes place, and such
Data be made available on the web-site of the State Bar
Council.”

104

 17. Amendment of section 24. In sub-section (1) of section
24 of the Advocates Act,(a) in clause (f),(I)

(i) for the words “six hundred rupees”, the words “two
thousand rupees” shall be substituted;
(ii) for the words “one hundred fifty rupees”, the words
“five hundred rupees” shall be substituted;

(II)

(i) for the words “one hundred rupees”, the words “five
hundred rupees” shall be substituted;
(ii)for the words “twenty-five rupees”, the words “one
hundred rupees” shall be substituted;

(b) after clause (f) the following clauses shall be inserted,
namely:“(g) he has paid professional development fees of three
hundred rupees to the State Bar Council and two hundred
rupees to the Bar Council of India:
Provided that where such person is a member of the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, the professional
development fee payable by him to the State Bar Council
shall be two hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of
India, one hundred rupees;
(h) he clears the All India Bar Examination or any other
test prescribed by Bar Council of India and fulfils such
other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by
the Bar Council of India.”.
18. Substitution of new section for section 24A.
For
section 24 A of the Advocates Act, the following section
shall be substituted, namely: “24A. Disqualification for enrolment._ (1) No person shall
be admitted as an advocate on a State roll(a)

if he is convicted of an offence involving moral
turpitude; or

105

 (b)

if he is convicted on an offence under the
provisions of the Untouchability (Offences)
Act, 1955 (22 of 1955) or the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989); or

(c)

if he has been convicted of contempt of court
subject to any order or decision of court.

(d)

if he has been dismissed or removed from
service or employment under the Union or
the State or its undertakings or any statutory
body or Corporation.”.

19. Substitution of new section for section 26A.
For
section 26A of the Advocates Act, the following shall be
substituted, namely:“26A. Power to remove names from rolls.A State Bar
Council may on receipt of information or request, remove
from the State roll, the name of any advocate,(a) who is dead; or
(b) from whom a request has been received to thateffect; or
(c) who is found guilty of serious misconduct or
abstaining from courts work or causing
obstruction in court’s functioning; or
(d) who has incurred any disqualification under
section 24A.”.
20. Amendment of section 33. In section 33 of the
Advocates Act, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:“Provided that the practice by law firms and foreign
lawyers recognized and registered by the Bar Council
of India shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
the registration under this Act.”.
21. Insertion of new section 33A. After section 33 of the
Advocates Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely: “33A. Registration of an advocate with a Bar Association._

106

 (1)

An advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council
engaged in or intend to practice before a court of law,
tribunal or before any authority or person shall get
himself registered as a member of the Bar Association
where he ordinarily practices or intends to practice
law.

(2)

In case any advocate leaves one Bar Association and
joins another by reason of change of place of practice
or by reason of change of field of law, he shall intimate
such change to the Bar Association of which he is a
member within a period of thirty days.”.

22. Amendment of section 35.
Advocates Act, -

In section 35 of the

(i)
after sub-section(1A), the following sub-section
shall be inserted, namely:“(1AB) The decision of referring a case under subsection(1), to the disciplinary committee shall be taken
by the concerned Bar Council within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the complaint.
(1AC) The complaint to the State Bar Council shall be
made in such form and accompanied by such fees, as
may be prescribed by the State Bar Council.”;
(ii)
in sub-section (3), the following clauses shall be
inserted, namely:“(e)
(f)

(g)

impose a fine which may extend of rupees three
lakhs and the cost of proceedings;
award compensation of such an amount, subject to
a maximum of rupees five lakhs as it may deem fit,
payable to the person aggrieved by the misconduct
of the advocate;
impose costs, subject to a maximum of rupees two
lakhs,(i) on the complainant in case the complaint is
found to be vexatious, false or frivolous;

107

 (ii) on the advocate concerned in case he is found
to be not cooperating in the disciplinary
proceedings under the Act.”,
(iii)
after sub-section(5), the following sub-section shall
be inserted, namely:“(6) During the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding in
the complaints of grave misconduct, the State Bar
Council, if deems fit, it may suspend the advocate
concerned from practice during the pendency of such
proceedings, provided no such suspension shall be
made without the recommendation of a Committee
consisting of (a) a former Judge of the High Court who
will be the Chairman of the Committee; and (b) two
Senior Advocates, as may be constituted by the State
Bar Council.
(iv) after sub-section (6), the following proviso shall be
inserted, namely:“Provided that if the advocate is convicted under
section 24A, he shall be deemed to have been guilty of
professional misconduct unless operation of such
conviction is stayed by a court of competent
jurisdiction.”.
23.
Insertion of new section 35A. After section 35 of the
Advocates Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:“35A.Prohibition on the boycotts or abstention from
courts’ work.– No association of advocates or any
member of the association or any advocate, either
individually or collectively, shall, give a call for boycott
or abstinence from courts’ work or boycott or abstain
from courts’ work or cause obstruction in any form in
court’s functioning or in court premises.”.
24. Amendment of section 36B. For sub-section (1) of
section 36B of the Advocates Act, the following sub-section shall
be substituted, namely:-

108

 “(1)(a) The disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council
shall dispose of the complaint received by it under section
35 expeditiously and in each case the proceedings shall
be concluded by the concerned Bar Council within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of the
complaint.
(b)
The proceedings initiated by the State Bar Council
either on the complaint or suo motu shall be completed
within a period of six months from the date of initiation
subject to extension for a maximum period of six months
by the Bar Council of India, for the reasons to be recorded
in writing.
(c)

In the event of,-

(i)

a decision not being taken whether to initiate the
proceeding within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of the complaint, or

(ii)

the proceedings being initiated, but not completed
within a period of six months or the extended
period, as the case may be,

then, such complaint or the proceedings shall stand
transferred to the Bar Council of India, which may
dispose of the same as if it were a proceeding withdrawn
for inquiry under sub-section(2) of section 36.”.
25. Amendment of Section 45. In section 45 of the
Advocates Act, for the words “with imprisonment for a term
which may extent to six months”, the words “with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which
may extend to rupees two lakhs” shall be substituted.
26. Insertion of new section 45A. After section 45 of the
Advocates Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:-

45A. Claim for compensation in certain cases.(1)

If any person suffers loss due to the misconduct of the
advocate or for his participation in strike or otherwise,
109

 then, such person may make a claim for
compensation against the advocate in the appropriate
forum established under any law for the time being in
force.
(2)

The non-payment of fees, either in full or part, by a
person to his advocate shall not be a defence available
for the advocate against whom such claim for
compensation is made.

27. Amendment of section 49. In sub-section (1) of section 49
of the Advocates Act,(i)

after the words “State Bar Council”, wherever they occur,
the words “and the Supreme Court Bar Association” shall
be inserted;

(ii)

for clause (af), the following clause shall be substituted,
namely:“(af) the minimum qualifications and other eligibility
including age required for admission to a course of
degree of law in any recognised university;”

(iii)
for clause (d), the following clause shall be substituted,
namely:“(d) the standards of legal education to be observed by
Universities and institutions imparting legal education in
India; and for that purpose the manner of inspection,
and the fees relating thereto keeping in view the
budgetary provisions of universities and institutions
imparting legal education, and the term and conditions
for approval of the courses;
(iv)
after clause (i), the following clauses shall be inserted,
namely:“(ia) the manner in which the State Bar Council may
exercise supervision and control over Bar Associations
except the Supreme Court Bar Association, Association of
law firms and foreign lawyers, situated within its
territorial jurisdiction and the manner in which the
110

 directions issued or orders passed by the State Bar
Council may be enforced;
(ib) to provide for continuing legal education for advocates
and its monitoring;
(ic) to make rules to register and regulate the law firms
including such firms operating in more than one State;
(id) to register and regulate Bar Associations;
(ie) for rendering of legal services and spreading legal
literacy;
(if) regulation of the Supreme Court Bar Association in
consultation with the President of the Bar Association and
for regulation of Associations of law firms and foreign
lawyers;
(ig) to prepare and carry out welfare schemes for
advocates in practice.”.
28. Amendment of section 50. In sub-section (5) of section
50 of the Advocates Act, in clause (b) for the words “the
Schedule”, the words “the First Schedule” shall be substituted.
29. Insertion of the Second Schedule.-After section 60 of
the Advocates Act, for the words “THE SCHEDULE”, the words
“THE FIRST SCHEDULE” shall be substituted and after the
First Schedule, the following schedule shall be inserted,
namely:-

“THE SECOND SCHEDULE
[See section 4(1)I]
Zone I

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Adhra Pradesh
Goa
Karnataka
Kerala
Maharashtra
Odisha
111

 7.
8.

Tamil Nadu
Telangana

Zone II

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh

Zone III

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
West Bengal

Zone IV

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Arunachal Pradesh

Zone
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

V
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Daman and Diu
Delhi
Lakshadweep
Puducherry.”.

Assam
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Tripura

----112

 113