'Judges Wasting Time In Advocates' Parties; Wrong Message To Public': Senior Adv To Supreme Court

During the hearing of cases where the Supreme Court is considering steps for the strengthening of Bar Associations across the country, a senior advocate today flagged the issue of "excessive interactions" between advocates and judges at informal events, saying that the same amount to waste of judicial time and send a wrong message to the public."Judges [are] being invited to birthday parties [by Bar members]! Atleast 2 parties every week...unnecessary interaction, judges wasting their time...sends a wrong message to the public that those who are close to judges can...", submitted Senior Advocate Sirajudeen before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta. BCI Vice Chairman Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran however objected to this submission, calling it scandalous.The Court was dealing with a batch of cases in one of which notice was issued last year for the limited purpose of laying down broad guidelines that may be followed for strengthening and enhancing the status and streamlining the overall functioning of Bar Associations throughout the country.During the hearing, Justice Kant raised the issue of there being multiple Bar Associations within states, with some having even as few members as 10-15. The judge further recognized that there's a legal vacuum insofar as composition and constitution of Bar Associations is concerned."Is there any provision under the Advocates Act under which the Bar Council or maybe even Central government or State government can have the power for the constitution of a Bar Association?" asked Justice Kant to Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran (Vice Chairman, BCI).Prabhakaran replied that if there are more than 200-300 members, a Bar Association approaches the State Bar Council for recognition, which then inspects and grants registration. "After registration only, they are entitled for welfare benefits by the state government, otherwise no", he said.Ultimately, on the control over Bar Associations, Justice Kant remarked, "unfortunately, there is a gray area, there's a vacuum, which needs to be taken care of. Advocates are very big stakeholders in the administration of justice." It was also said that the Bar Council does not have power under the statute and it is "trying" to get it by offering "incentive" that if a Bar Association gets registered with it, then it will provide something.When Senior Advocate K Parmeswar, appointed as Amicus Curiae, acknowledged that there is a regulatory vacuum, Justice Kant asked him to examine whether in case of Bar Associations, recognition by State Bar Council would matter or the jurisdictional High Court. "Right from entry into the profession, minimum standard of qualifying examination, why not periodical examination for updating and if there is failure, why not suspension of licenses? All these things, somebody should take care of. You are only adding every year, because vote-bank is spreading. That is not going to solve the problem", said the judge.BackgroundThe matter, originally pertaining to allegations of discrimination and elitism against the Madras Bar Association, turned a new leaf as Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners stated on instruction that they did not want to press the allegations made against Senior Advocate PH Pandian (since deceased), or the Madras Bar Association. They further expressed that the petitioners were willing to unconditionally withdraw all allegations. Taking into account the same as well as a submission that purpose behind the petitions was to seek uniform guidelines for strengthening of Bar Associations across the country, the Court issued notice, which was accepted on behalf of Madras Bar Association.Case Title: RE: STRENGTHENING AND ENHANCING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS Versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 3950/2024 (and connected cases)

'Judges Wasting Time In Advocates' Parties; Wrong Message To Public': Senior Adv To Supreme Court

Debby Jain

Tags