Today, On 20th March, The Chief Justice of India asked the lawyer to move the Delhi High Court after a runaway couple’s protection plea was mentioned before the Supreme Court of India. He questioned, “Why this step-motherly treatment to Article 226 jurisdiction?”
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said litigants cannot backtrack or blame their lawyer after withdrawing a case. It added that “a counsel is an officer of the court and not merely a mechanical agent of the litigant” while rejecting such excuses.
The Supreme Court has directed High Courts to notify convicts before appointing an amicus curiae to represent them. The move aims to ensure fair representation and prevent future legal disputes in long-pending criminal appeals.
Today, On 12th March, The Supreme Court dismissed Advocate Ashok Pandey’s petition seeking Rs 1 crore from the Union Government. He claimed the amount was for fees and expenses for cases he filed to “save” former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a woman’s plea to prosecute the parents and grandmother of the man she accused of rape on a false promise of marriage, holding that her claims of their alleged assurance did not constitute abetment.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that ending a romantic relationship cannot be treated as instigation to commit suicide. The Court clarified that a breakup alone does not fulfil the legal requirements to constitute the offense of abetment of suicide.
Rajasthan High Court upheld the State’s decision denying a woman access to her husband’s salary details under the RTI Act. The court ruled that such personal financial information cannot be disclosed, protecting privacy over transparency.
The Delhi High Court heard pleas by the Bar Council of India and Association of Tax Lawyers opposing non-advocates in tribunals. Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain noted Section 30 grants enrolled advocates exclusive rights of appearance nationwide.
The Delhi High Court rebuked a proxy counsel for attending a matrimonial hearing without knowing the case facts. Stressing professionalism, the Court said, “A counsel appearing as proxy must always be prepared and know the entire case status.”
The Orissa High Court criticised the Bhubaneswar DSP for scurrilous remarks against the Advocate General, holding that such conduct defies court orders. It said justice must rest on public trust, emphasising that “purity is the hallmark of justice.”
