The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council after allegations surfaced that it charges Rs 2,500 for “oral interviews” before enrolling new advocates. The Court said the practice appears to violate its ruling that no Bar Council can collect fees beyond the statutory limit.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea questioning the Bombay High Court’s view that the POSH Act does not apply to complaints by women advocates before bar councils. The case could redefine sexual harassment protections for women lawyers across India.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, through its October 20, 2025 notification, has designated 76 advocates as Senior Advocates under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, acknowledging their legal expertise and distinguished standing at the Bar.
Today, On 19th September, The Punjab and Haryana High Court has initiated a suo motu case after a lawyer waved a sword in court and assaulted Bar members. The High Court directed the Chandigarh Police to file a response in the matter.
Punjab and Haryana Bar Council suspended two lawyers for wielding a sword inside court and attacking bar leaders, stating such behaviour amounts to disrespecting the entire legal profession as it violates ethical standards and professional duties under the Advocates Act.
Karnataka Bar Council warns lawyers to remove derogatory promotional reels and videos uploaded on social media or face strict disciplinary action under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Bar Council of Delhi has banned lawyers from advertising on social media, warning strict action under the Advocates Act for those violating professional ethics and Rule 36 guidelines.
Today, On 19th May, The Supreme Court has now asked the Bar Council of India to respond to a PIL challenging the Rs.3,500 fee for the AIBE. Earlier in February, the Court declined to hear the PIL but allowed a representation to BCI.
SILF President Lalit Bhasin said the Bar Council’s decision to allow foreign law firms is premature. He supported the idea but stressed that the Advocates Act should have been amended first for proper implementation.
The Supreme Court of India proposed that the Bar Council of India mandate attorneys enrolled post-2010 to include their All India Bar Examination status in their vakalatnama. This aims to enhance transparency and regulatory compliance, linking non-compliance to misconduct under the Advocates Act. The court also questioned the enrolment fee structure.
