The Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) expressed discontent with Justice A. Badharudeen’s treatment of lawyers, citing refusal to adjourn a case for a health concern and last-minute scheduling. They recommended universal video recording of court proceedings for transparency and fairness. The incident underscores the need for judicial reforms to enhance procedural fairness and transparency.
The Bombay High Court ruled on a high-profile defamation case involving Javed Akhtar and Kangana Ranaut, denying Ranaut’s request to stay the proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of timing in legal battles and the court’s commitment to procedural integrity. This complex case reflects the challenges of addressing defamation in the context of public figures and media scrutiny.
The Kerala High Court Advocate’s Association, alongside its President and Secretary, has filed a plea highlighting instances of police harassment, assault, and false charges against lawyers. The High Court has called for the state’s response and the establishment of clear guidelines to safeguard legal professionals. This pivotal move aims to address the ongoing issue and reinforce respect for the rule of law.
The Supreme Court of India quashed a defamation case against a lawyer brought by a newspaper owner, citing freedom of speech rights. The ruling emphasized the delicate balance between reputation and free speech, affirming the media’s right to freedom of expression and the judiciary’s role in protecting it. This case sets a significant precedent in Indian defamation law.
The former senior Government Pleader from Kerala, Adv P G Manu, was denied anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court after being accused of raping a woman seeking legal advice. The survivor alleges multiple instances of assault and distribution of private pictures. This case highlights the need for accountability in positions of authority and justice for survivors.
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasizes courtroom etiquette and professionalism in the Supreme Court, reprimanding lawyers for breaches of conduct. His commitment to upholding dignity and decorum serves as a reminder of the importance of etiquette and adherence to courtroom protocols, maintaining the sanctity of legal proceedings. Despite pushback, his stance remains unwavering.
![[Breaking] Enrolment Fees for Lawyers Cannot Exceed Rs. 600: Supreme Court Mandates For All State Bar Council](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WhatsApp-Image-2024-01-27-at-3.05.14-PM.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court has intervened in a disciplinary matter involving the Bar Council of India, staying the imposition of a Rs. 50,000 penalty on an advocate. While not interfering with the dismissal of the complaint, the court’s decision reflects a balancing act between professional standards and ensuring disciplinary measures are not excessively punitive. The case highlights the complexity of legal ethics and the need for judicious exercise of disciplinary powers.
The Delhi Bar Council suspended Advocate Peeush Kulshreshtha’s license for 7 years due to serious ethical violations, including forging court decrees and providing false assurances to clients. Despite multiple chances to defend himself, he failed to appear before the Disciplinary Committee, leading to a strict verdict. This decision underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards in the legal profession.
The Allahabad High Court administration has mandated respectful and humble interactions between court officials and legal professionals to promote a professional and congenial environment. This initiative emphasizes the crucial role of lawyers and clerks in the judicial process and aims to prevent unprofessional behavior. The directive reflects the court’s commitment to upholding justice and fairness.
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer accused of an illicit relationship with a client. The Court highlighted the absence of a direct complaint from the client and suggested the husband’s adversarial relationship drove the complaint, emphasizing the need for solid evidence in legal and disciplinary matters. The ruling underscores the importance of evidence and contextual scrutiny in such cases.