Advocates Act 1961 - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which permits the Full Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu based on exceptional merit. The Court clarified that such designations must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity, as outlined in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. The judgment emphasized that the suo motu power of the Full Court is supplementary to the application-based process and does not undermine the statutory framework. The amended Rule 6(9) was upheld, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the High Court of Oriss...

Tag: Advocates Act 1961

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion