The Rajasthan High Court has questioned the Bar Council of India’s authority to extend the term of State Bar Council members beyond the five-year limit set by the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court demanded clarification on Rule 32, which allows term extensions due to delayed elections, and set a hearing for November 14.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Today (Oct 15) issued new guidelines recommending a minimum stipend for junior advocates assisting senior advocates, law firms and independent practitioners. It also noted that senior advocates and firms in smaller towns or less lucrative fields may not have the financial resources to provide substantial stipends. Therefore, while the guidelines are encouraged, they are not enforced as mandatory across the profession.
A group of Indian legal professionals opposes the BCI, Bar Council of India’s recent notification imposing new regulations for law colleges, including criminal background checks and biometric attendance. They criticize the lack of transparency, clarity, and justification for these measures, arguing they’re unconstitutional, invasive, and disproportionately target law students. They demand immediate withdrawal.
The Delhi High Court rejected a petition aiming to disqualify Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman of the Bar Council of India, from the Rajya Sabha, citing lack of grounds for disqualification. The court imposed a Rs 25,000 fine on the petitioner, affirming that only eligible individuals can challenge elections as prescribed by law.
The Supreme Court Today (Oct 4) issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in the ongoing dispute over the official Rouse Avenue Court bar body, where the Central Delhi Court Bar Association has been recognised as the main association. Apex Court asked the BCI how the Bar Council of Delhi can enter into the aspect of deciding which is the main bar association body. The Court was hearing an appeal against a Delhi High Court decision that recognised the Central Delhi Court Bar Association as the main bar body for the Rouse Avenue District Court.
![[Misappropriation Case] Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against State Bar Council](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Karnataka-High-Court-Grants-Interim-Relief-in-Misappropriation-Case-Against-Bar-Council-Chairman-%E2%80%93-The-Legal-Affair.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 27th September, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the FIR against Karnataka State Bar Council officials over allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 3.3 crore raised for an advocates’ convention. The court denied the petition by KSBC leaders who sought dismissal of charges related to financial misconduct, emphasizing governance issues within legal bodies.
Today, On 27th September, the Supreme Court fined Advocate Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal Rs.1 lakh for filing a frivolous contempt plea against the Bar Council of India regarding delayed complaints. The court found his arguments weak and emphasized the need for the BCI to expedite complaint resolutions to maintain legal profession integrity.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) released an important notification regarding the registration for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) XIX. As per this notification, candidates who are in their final year of a 3-year or 5-year integrated L.L.B. degree program and do not possess enrollment certificates are now allowed to appear for the AIBE exam. The Supreme Court on Sept 20 allowed final-year law students to appear in the AIBE which is scheduled to take place on November 24.
![[AIBE Controversy] Can Final Year Students Appear for the Exam?|| SC to Hear Plea Against BCI Notification](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Padho-Bhai-Says-CJI-Rejecting-PIL-For-Lowering-of-Cutoff-in-AIBE-Exam.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Final-year law students filed a petition in the Supreme Court contesting a rule preventing them from taking the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). They argue that this restriction violates their rights and delays their entry into the legal profession. The petition seeks to invalidate the rule and requests permission for the students to sit for the exam. The case is set for a hearing on September 13, 2024.