bar council news

New Delhi: Differences cropped up on Wednesday within the top lawyers’ associations over the statement made by Supreme Court Justice Arun Mishra praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a global judicial conference here last week.

After the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) sent a communication, signed by its President Dushyant Dave, about a ‘resolution’ signed by several members expressing anguish and concern over the statements of Justice Mishra, the general secretary Ashok Arora of the association claimed that “no resolution has been passed” as he has not signed the statement released to the media.

Hours later, Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman of Bar Council of India (BCI) – the apex body regulating the lawyers – termed as “myopic mindset” the criticism of Justice Mishra by the SCBA president for his praising Modi at the ‘International Judicial Conference’ on Saturday.

On February 22, Justice Mishra was all praise for Modi and termed him as an “internationally acclaimed visionary” and a “versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally”.

Also read: Congress Questions ‘Sudden’ Transfer of Justice Muralidhar, Says BJP’s ‘Politics of Revenge Exposed’

Another body, The Bar Association of India, also expressed concern and dismay over the use of “effusive terms of praise and adulation” by Justice Mishra for Modi, saying such a statement impinges upon the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

BAI was the first to make the critical statement on the issue and later the SCBA issued the communication on the matter which was shortly opposed by Arora.

BAI President Lalit Bhasin, who had also issued a statement on Tuesday that such act diminishes the confidence of the public as the judges of the apex court, spoke to PTI on Wednesday and said the Supreme Court deals with the matters concerning government policies and actions and its judge making laudable references about the Prime Minister sends a wrong message to the public.

The criticism of Justice Mishra by the SCBA did not go down well with the apex bar body, BCI.

“Dushyant Dave (SCBA President) by publishing an article about Justice Mishra, tried to drag Justice Mishra in an undesirable and unsavoury controversy over his speech at the international judicial conference 2020, held recently at the Supreme Court,” the BCI chairperson said in a statement.

Terming the criticism of Justice Mishra as an act of “myopic mindset”, he said that “Mishra’s speech was in the capacity of a host and he used best of words for all the guests who graced the occasion. He was not holding a court at that time”.

In a communication sent to the media, the SCBA had said, it has taken note “with a deep sense of anguish and concern”, the statement made by Justice Mishra.

Also read: Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters on Narendra Modi and the ‘Fascist, Racist’ CAA

“The SCBA expresses its strong reservations of the aforesaid statement and condemns the same strongly. The SCBA believes that the independence of the judiciary is the basic structure under the Constitution of India and that such independence be preserved in letter and spirit,” the SCBA statement had said.

However, Arora said that what Dave is saying cannot be considered as a resolution as he, in the capacity as general secretary, has not sighed the communication sent to the media.

“There was no executive council or general body meeting of the Association. The President has taken an arbitrary dictatorial and irresponsible stand. He cannot speak on behalf of SCBA without calling general body meeting or meeting of the executive council on such a serious issue,” he said.

Arora told PTI that all the communication to the media is to be sent through the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who is the general secretary of the SCBA.

“It is not a resolution in the eyes of law because it was not signed by me,” he said, adding that Dave has made available to media a circular which contained suggestions of only six to seven members.

New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a statement saying that they are likely to amend the Advocates Act to include a clause of “mandatory experience” that new lawyers will need if they wish to practice in the higher courts.

The BCI said that any new lawyer should have practiced for at least two years in a district or taluka court, before practicing in any the high court of any state. And a lawyer wanting to practice in the Supreme Court and would need to have practiced for two years in any high court before that.

According to a statement from the BCI, the decision was taken “in light of suggestions made by” the new Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, at a recent public function where he appeared along with Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and other top lawyers and judges.

The new rules, if formulated, will mean that a new lawyer looking to break into high court practice will need to show a certificate which will have to be issued by an older advocate with at least 15 years of experience at the Bar, as well as the district judge, that certifies that the young lawyer had practiced in a district or taluka court for at least two years.

Also read: Bar Council Ignored Proof to Say Lawyers Didn’t Obstruct Kathua Chargesheet

The BCI further said that no high court bar association should give membership to any young lawyer if they do not produce this certificate of mandatory two years’ experience.

Likewise, a lawyer wanting to practice in the Supreme Court will need to produce an experience certificate from a high court bar association and the high court’s Registrar General. The BCI is also mulling whether to call for a rule on a minimum number of “appearances” that a lawyer who has practiced in the High Court needs to make, in order to get this certificate.

These rules are likely to come into effect in about four months, by March 2020, and will be applicable to all new entrants to the profession who qualify for the Bar exam. It will be done by amending the Advocates Act and exercising current powers listed in Section 7 and 49 of the Act.

Similar to the medical field, the council is also looking to make it compulsory for advocates with 10 years of practice, to undergo ‘continuous legal education’. An advocate will need to have undertaken at least 40 days of training over the course of five years.

Venugopal had also spoken at this recent public function adding that the age of retirement for judges should be made 68 or 70 years. The Bar Council has agreed to the suggestion, saying that this has been one of their longstanding demands as well. But the council said that if the age of retirement is increased, then judges should not be given any post-retirement postings in commissions, tribunals or boards. These postings should instead be given to deserving lawyers only.

Also read: First, They Came For the Lawyers…

The BCI said it is also looking into the issue of having a minimum number of years of experience for judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. Previously, a lower level judicial officer needed three years of experience at the bar in order to be eligible to be an officer. The Supreme Court, however, removed this requirement in a judgment.

However the BCI has held that “the Bar and litigants are facing a lot of problems due to lack of experience of the newly appointed judicial officers or munsifs and magistrate. Their training in judicial academies will prove insufficient, unless they get experience at the Bar.” On this, the BCI is planning to file for a review of the Supreme Court judgment that struck down this minimum experience requirement for judicial officers.

On November 22, a 21-year-old man in Jaipur was announced “India’s youngest judge” after having cleared the necessary exams to be a judge in a lower court. He started his five year law degree in 2014, graduated this year, and with no experience as a practicing lawyer, is set to become a judge at a lower court.

“I could appear in the exam only because the minimum age was reduced. Had it not been so then I would not have been eligible,” he told ANI.