Today, On 9th October, The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has revoked advocate Rakesh Kishore’s membership following his attempt to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai. The act was called a “direct assault on judicial independence.”
Today, On 4th June, The Supreme Court criticised the rising trend of newly designated senior advocates skipping ongoing cases. Justice Amanullah called it “highly unethical,” stressing that becoming a senior advocate means greater responsibility, not an excuse to avoid appearances.
The Leader of Opposition in Assam, Debabrata Saikia, criticized Advocate General Devojit Lon Saikia for violating constitutional norms by accepting roles in the BCCI and ICC, which conflict with his duties and principles of the “Office of Profit.” He called for an investigation due to potential ethical breaches and legal implications.
Today, On 16th December, the Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that practicing advocates cannot work full-time as journalists, citing Rule 49 to prevent conflicts of interest. The court and petitioner acknowledged this stance, emphasizing the necessity for advocates to focus solely on their legal responsibilities to maintain professional integrity and public trust.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates. Following the designation process, a committee member resigned, alleging the final list was altered without his approval. The Supreme Court’s response will address concerns about the transparency of the designation process.
An FIR filed against Kerala lawyer TK Ajan for indecent behavior during a virtual court appearance. He allegedly exposed himself and made obscene gestures, leading to the termination of the video conference session by the court. The charges include offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Kerala Police Act. This incident highlights challenges posed by virtual court hearings in maintaining courtroom decorum.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court criticized a lawyer for attempting to secure a favorable judgment by pressuring the court with concerns about losing his legal fees. The court emphasized that an advocate’s profession is not a business and should not focus on fee recovery. The petition was ultimately dismissed, highlighting the professional duty of lawyers to prioritize their clients’ cases over financial interests.
