Senior Advocate flags concern before the Supreme Court, stating that judges attending advocates’ birthday parties sends a wrong message to the public and undermines judicial impartiality and public trust.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday took serious note of informal interactions between members of the Bar and the Bench, including judges being invited to birthday parties and other private gatherings. What began as a case against the Madras Bar Association for alleged elitism has now evolved into a broader legal dialogue about transparency, accountability, and regulation in the legal profession.
ALSO READ: Gauhati HC Relocation| CM Himanta Biswa Sarma Resigns from Bar Association
Concern Over Informal Interactions Between Judges and Lawyers
Senior Advocate Sirajudeen, in a striking observation before a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, flagged the growing culture of judges being invited to at least two parties per week by Bar members. He warned that such unnecessary social interactions not only consume valuable judicial time but also send a wrong message to the public regarding impartiality and judicial integrity.
This sparked a larger discussion around professional boundaries and the perception of bias, a recurring concern in matters of judicial ethics.
ALSO READ: Gurugram Court Clash || Bar Association to Approach High Court Against Judge
Lack of Clear Guidelines in Bar Association Formation
Justice Surya Kant drew attention to the unregulated proliferation of Bar Associations across states, with some formed by as few as 10–15 advocates. These small associations often exist without any oversight or accountability mechanisms.
Senior Advocate S. Prabhakaran, Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), responded by noting that Bar Associations with over 200-300 members can apply for recognition by State Bar Councils. However, Justice Kant rightly pointed out that the Advocates Act lacks explicit provisions empowering the Bar Council to oversee the formation and internal regulation of these associations—exposing a glaring legal vacuum.
Supreme Court’s Call for Systemic Reform
The Bench broadened its vision to include systemic reforms in the legal profession. Key ideas discussed included:
- Periodic Examinations for practicing advocates to ensure legal knowledge remains updated.
- Quality control in enrollment, as the number of new lawyers continues to rise without parallel checks.
- Amicus Curiae K. Parameswar was directed to evaluate whether State Bar Councils or jurisdictional High Courts are better suited to regulate Bar Association recognition and standards.
This could mark a paradigm shift in how legal institutions function at grassroots levels.
Interestingly, the case was originally filed in response to accusations of elitism and exclusion by the Madras Bar Association. During the hearing, however, senior counsels for the petitioners stated that they wished to withdraw the allegations, particularly against the now-deceased Senior Advocate P.H. Pandian.
Despite this withdrawal, the Supreme Court continued the proceedings, shifting focus to the structural overhaul of Bar Associations across the country. The Madras Bar Association, represented through counsel, did not object and accepted the broader reform-based notice.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Justice Yashwant Varma
