Delhi High Court Tells Lawyers to Avoid Delays and File Reports Quickly in Bail and Parole Cases

by News

The Delhi High Court has issued a circular urging lawyers to avoid unnecessary delays and to file status reports promptly in bail, interim bail, furlough, parole, and suspension of sentence cases. Dated July 25, the circular mandates that all bail petitions in the High Court must include status reports from investigative agencies that were submitted to the trial courts.

The Court also requests that lawyers assist in obtaining nominal rolls from jail authorities quickly and comply with court orders promptly to ensure smooth judicial proceedings. This decision aims to expedite the disposal of such matters and improve the efficiency of the judicial system. The Court appreciates the Bar’s cooperation in adhering to these guidelines.

Consumer Forum Orders Zomato to Pay ₹60,000 for Failing to Deliver Customer’s ₹133 Order

by News

A consumer forum in Karnataka has ordered food delivery company Zomato to pay ₹60,000 to a woman for not delivering her momos order worth ₹133.25. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Dharwad found Zomato guilty of providing poor service, causing the woman significant inconvenience and stress.

On August 31, 2023, the woman ordered momos through Zomato and paid ₹133.25 via G-Pay. She later received a notification that her order had been delivered, but she did not receive the food. When she contacted the restaurant, they informed her that the delivery agent had picked up the order. She tried reaching out to the delivery agent through the Zomato website but got no response. The same day, she emailed a complaint to Zomato and was told to wait 72 hours for a response.

After not hearing back from Zomato, she sent a legal notice on September 13, 2023, and eventually took the matter to the consumer forum. During the hearing, Zomato’s lawyer denied the woman’s claims and argued that the company had no legal ties with the delivery person or the restaurant.

The Commission noted that although Zomato requested 72 hours to resolve the issue, they had not done so by the time the complaint was filed. This raised doubts about the reliability of their promise. As a result, the Commission awarded the woman ₹50,000 for the inconvenience and mental stress caused, along with ₹10,000 for litigation costs. Zomato was represented by Advocate GM Kansogi.

Sheetal-v-Zomato-2 [Read Order]

Legal Profession is a Service, Not a Business: Madras High Court Orders Removal of Online Lawyer Ads

by News

The Madras High Court recently addressed the issue of lawyers advertising their services online, emphasizing that the legal profession should not be treated as a business. The court was hearing a plea against websites like Quikr, Sulekha, and Justdial, which offer “online lawyer services.” The court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to create guidelines for state bar councils to take disciplinary actions against advocates who advertise or solicit work, whether directly or indirectly.

A bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan also instructed the BCI to file complaints against online service providers or intermediaries that violate Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. This rule strictly prohibits touting and soliciting work through advertisements, messages, or any form of marketing. The court expressed concern over some legal professionals adopting a business model, emphasizing that legal services are fundamentally a service to society, not a business driven by profit.

The court underscored that while lawyers are paid a service fee, it is in respect for their time and knowledge, not as a commercial transaction. The BCI was directed to remove any advertisements that have already been published by lawyers through these online service providers and to advise these intermediaries not to publish such advertisements in the future.

The court criticized the trend of “branding culture” among lawyers, stating that it is harmful to society. According to the court, ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is not appropriate and undermines the dignity and integrity of the profession. The court highlighted that professional dignity and integrity should never be compromised, especially in the legal profession.

The plea was filed by PN Vignesh, who sought action against websites that provide online lawyer services. He argued that these websites not only list the names and numbers of lawyers but also offer a system where users looking for legal assistance are given a PIN to connect with listed lawyers. Additionally, these websites have a grading system that categorizes lawyers under titles such as “Platinum,” “Premium,” and “Top Service Provider.”

The counsel for these websites contended that they were merely providing online directory services and not soliciting work for lawyers. They argued that directory services are not prohibited under the Advocates Act. However, the court noted that these websites give ratings without any basis and appear to be selling legal services of lawyers for a fixed price, which contravenes the Bar Council of India Rules.

The court elaborated on why lawyers are not permitted to advertise their services. It explained that a lawyer stands for truth and justice, and thus, the profession cannot be treated as a business. Advertising or solicitation would diminish the integrity of the profession. The court asserted that marketing of lawyers undermines the nobility and integrity of the profession. The justice delivery process is strongly based on the Constitution, and lawyers, as upholders of law, cannot treat the profession as a business. It would be contradictory for a lawyer who fights for justice to do so with a profit motive.

Furthermore, the court opined that self-branding by lawyers and promotion through advertisements would negatively impact the profession. The legal profession should not be viewed superficially. While some may argue that a business model could help meet the growing demand for professional services, the court did not agree with this view. The court acknowledged that the tools used in the profession could be updated or changed based on evolving circumstances, such as the shift from physical hearings to virtual hearings during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, the spirit and character, which form the fundamental structure of the profession, should never be altered.

In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that the legal profession is a noble service, not a commercial enterprise. The court’s directives aim to preserve the integrity and dignity of the profession by preventing advertising and solicitation by lawyers. This decision upholds the traditional values of the legal profession while recognizing the need for adaptation to changing circumstances without compromising its core principles.

India to Open Legal Market to UK Lawyers: BCI to Announce Amended Rules by End of July

by News

India is set to open its legal market to lawyers and law firms from the United Kingdom (UK) with the Bar Council of India (BCI) expected to notify and implement amended rules by the end of July. This significant development was announced during a meeting at the Law Society’s Hall in London, attended by representatives from the Law Society and the Bar Council of England and Wales.

This move follows the BCI’s earlier efforts to liberalize the Indian legal market, which began in March last year when the BCI announced the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022. However, these rules were not put into effect due to objections raised by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) and a need for further clarity from the Law Society and the Bar Council of England and Wales. Additionally, a petition challenging the rules was filed in the Delhi High Court.

The recent meeting in London addressed several issues related to the amended regulations. The session began with opening remarks from Law Society President Nick Emmerson, who emphasized the importance of India as a jurisdiction and expressed a desire to work closely with the BCI on implementing the new rules. BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra explained that while the BCI is eager to open the Indian market to UK lawyers and firms, there are concerns about international law firms headquartered in London entering India. For now, the BCI intends to limit market access to British lawyers and firms, with others allowed to operate in India only on a ‘fly-in, fly-out’ basis.

Several key issues were discussed during the meeting:

  1. Rule 8(2)(v): This rule states that Indian advocates working with foreign law firms can only handle non-litigious matters and advise on laws of countries other than India. The Law Society argued for fewer restrictions on Indian lawyers working for foreign firms, emphasizing opportunities for Indian lawyers. BCI agreed to review this rule, with a focus on ensuring reciprocal treatment for Indian lawyers in the UK.
  2. Definition of “foreign law”: The current rules define foreign law as the law effective in the country of primary qualification. The Law Society suggested that UK lawyers should be able to offer English and international legal work in partnership with Indian lawyers handling Indian law. BCI agreed to consider this suggestion.
  3. Definition of “foreign client”: The existing definition restricts foreign law firms to advising clients who are foreign citizens or businesses with a registered office abroad. The Law Society pointed out that advising such clients could be done from outside India, making it unnecessary to have offices in India for this purpose. BCI agreed to amend the definition to include Indian clients.
  4. Fly-in, fly-out period: Currently set at 60 days, both the Law Society and the Bar Council of England and Wales requested an extension to 90 days. BCI agreed to review this in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in AK Balaji.
  5. Registration costs: The UK representatives raised concerns about the high costs of registering individual lawyers. BCI agreed to review these costs.
  6. Disciplinary jurisdiction: It was suggested that the BCI should have disciplinary jurisdiction over foreign lawyers practicing in India. BCI noted this concern and agreed to consider it further.
  7. International commercial arbitration: BCI agreed to develop a Code of Conduct for foreign lawyers involved in international disputes, as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in AK Balaji.

The meeting concluded on a positive note with Emmerson and Mishra both expressing optimism about the future cooperation between the UK and Indian legal sectors. Emmerson highlighted the importance of strong legal sector ties amid ongoing negotiations for a UK-India free trade agreement and the economic growth of India. He emphasized that the Law Society of England and Wales has extensive experience in the legal services sector and regulating an open jurisdiction, and is eager to share this expertise with the BCI.

Mishra acknowledged the fruitful discussions and reiterated the BCI’s commitment to implementing the new regulations by the end of July. He expressed hope that the issues discussed would be resolved once back in Delhi and emphasized the importance of cooperation between the UK and Indian legal communities. Mishra also noted that the BCI respects the sentiment of the Indian government regarding the free trade agreement and will make necessary amendments to the rules to suit both UK and Indian law firms and lawyers.

The Chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Sam Townend KC, also expressed satisfaction with the discussions. He recognized the unique position of the self-employed Bar, which is primarily interested in fly-in, fly-out arrangements for single arbitrations rather than establishing offices in India. Townend looked forward to further discussions during his visit to India in October.

In summary, the BCI’s decision to open the Indian legal market to UK lawyers and firms marks a significant step towards liberalizing the sector. The discussions in London addressed various issues and paved the way for implementing the new regulations, which are expected to foster closer ties and cooperation between the legal communities of the UK and India.

Supreme Court Upholds Order to Demolish Illegal Shiva Temple on Yamuna Floodplains

by News

The Supreme Court has approved the demolition of an illegal Shiva Temple situated on the Yamuna floodplains. This decision upholds the May 29 ruling by the Delhi High Court, which had ordered the temple’s demolition. The High Court had argued that the Yamuna riverbed and floodplain should be free from encroachments and illegal constructions, suggesting that Lord Shiva would be happier with a cleaner environment.

A vacation bench of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih addressed the case, confirming that the High Court’s decision was sound and questioning the legitimacy of the petition filed by the Akhada Samiti. Justice Kumar pointed out that having an akhada (a traditional place of wrestling) on floodplains is inappropriate and noted that akhadas are typically associated with Lord Hanuman, not Lord Shiva. The Delhi High Court had emphasized that Lord Shiva does not need the court’s protection, but rather, it is people who seek his protection and blessings. The court dismissed the petitioner’s attempt to involve Lord Shiva directly in the legal matter, labeling it as a tactic to shift the focus of the dispute. The court stated that the real concern is the encroachment on the Yamuna floodplains, and clearing these areas would be more respectful to Lord Shiva. Justice Dharmesh Sharma of the Delhi High Court further noted that just because daily prayers and special events are held at the temple, this does not make it a place of public significance. There was no evidence to prove that the temple was a public entity rather than a private one managed by the petitioner society. Based on these findings, the High Court had granted the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) the right to demolish the unauthorized structure. The petitioner society and its members were instructed not to interfere with the demolition process. Unhappy with the High Court’s ruling, the Akhada Samiti appealed to the Supreme Court, but their appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the High Court’s stance that removing illegal structures from the Yamuna floodplains is necessary for environmental and legal reasons. In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling supports the idea that religious sentiments cannot justify illegal constructions, particularly in sensitive environmental areas like the Yamuna floodplains. The focus remains on upholding the law and protecting natural resources, ensuring that encroachments do not harm the environment.

J&K High Court Orders LCMA Not to Harass Tea Sellers at Dal Lake Floating Market

by News

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently directed the Jammu and Kashmir Land Conservation and Management Authority (LCMA) in Srinagar not to harass tea sellers at the Dal Lake floating market, as long as they have valid licenses. This decision came in response to a petition filed by the partners of Zabarwan Tea Stall, who complained that LCMA officials were frequently visiting and disturbing their business.

The High Court’s order was passed by Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal on May 29. The petitioners argued that they were being unnecessarily harassed despite having the required licenses to sell tea at the floating market. They claimed that this harassment was disrupting their business operations.

In their order, the judges emphasized that no obstacles should be placed in the way of anyone running a business legally with the necessary licenses. The Court made it clear that the LCMA officials should not disturb the petitioners’ business if they have a valid license.

The Court’s statement read, “We see no reason why any impediment be created to any person, who is running business after obtaining necessary license.” This means that as long as the tea sellers are following the rules and have the right permits, they should be allowed to operate without any trouble.

However, the High Court also gave the LCMA the authority to check the authenticity of these licenses. If any vendor is found operating without a valid license, the LCMA can take legal action against them. The Court stated, “The respondents-authority would be at liberty to verify the validity or genuineness of the license, if any and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and if petitioners are found running the business without any valid license or documents, the concerned authority shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.”

Advocate Sajid Ahmad Bhat represented the petitioners, while Advocates Illyas Nazir and Syed Muzaib represented the LCMA.

In summary, the High Court has protected the rights of tea sellers at Dal Lake to operate without harassment, provided they have valid licenses. The LCMA can still check licenses and take action if any vendor is found operating illegally.

NEET UG 2024: Supreme Court Allows Retest for Affected Candidates

by News

The Central government informed the Supreme Court that candidates who received less time during the NEET UG 2024 exam would be allowed to retake the test. If they opt not to retake the exam, their original scores will be kept, but any grace marks given for the time loss will be removed.

This decision comes amid concerns over the “arbitrary” awarding of grace marks, which reportedly led to a surprising increase in top scores. Allegations of malpractices, cheating, and other irregularities during the exam have also surfaced.

The Supreme Court was told that 1,563 candidates were affected because they received less than the allotted time for the NEET 2024 exam. These candidates will have the option to retake the exam. If they choose to do so, their previous scores will be canceled, and only the new scores from the retest will count. If they decide not to retake the test, their original scores will stand, but without the previously awarded grace marks.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was informed that this solution was proposed after a committee meeting held on June 12. The Court recorded this decision in its order. The Court noted, “As per the recommendations, it has been suggested that the scorecard of affected 1,563 candidates will be canceled and withdrawn, and actual scores will be informed without grace marks. A re-exam will be conducted for them. The result of those who do not take the retest will be their actual scores without grace marks.”

The National Testing Agency (NTA) announced that the retest would be held on June 23, with results expected by June 30. Medical college counseling will begin on July 6.

The Supreme Court is handling petitions regarding the conduct of the NEET UG exam. Some petitions challenge the award of grace marks, while others call for the cancellation of the NEET results announced on June 4. Advocate Kanu Agrawal, representing the Central government, explained that the decision to hold a retest for those who received grace marks due to time loss was made by an NTA committee on June 12. This was done to address the concerns of students.

The Court was informed that the retest would cover 1,563 students from six exam centers who were affected by the time issue. Advocate J Sai Deepak, representing a petitioner (Alakh Pandey, founder of test prep startup PhysicsWallah), raised concerns that while this decision provides a second chance for some candidates, there are others with concerns who have not approached the Court.

The Bench stated that it could not expand the scope of the case to include those who had not yet approached the Court. However, the Court ordered the NTA to respond to allegations of unfair practices in the NEET exam by July 8, when the case will be heard next. Advocate Naresh Kaushik represented the NTA.

In summary, affected NEET UG 2024 candidates can choose to retake the exam or keep their original scores without grace marks. This decision aims to ensure fairness amid controversies regarding the exam’s conduct and the awarding of grace marks.

Delhi High Court Orders Speedy Trial in Excise Policy Case Involving High-Profile Politicians

by News

The Delhi High Court has issued specific directions to expedite the trial in the Delhi excise policy case, which is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This decision came after Hyderabad businessman Arun Ramachandran Pillai challenged the trial court’s decision to proceed with hearings on charges.

The case involves high-profile politicians such as former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court instructed the trial court to start hearing arguments on charges immediately and to assign “block dates” for each accused to present their arguments on framing of charges. Justice Sharma also emphasized that written submissions should be filed on the same day the oral arguments are concluded, to ensure a speedy trial.

Furthermore, the Court directed that once the CBI files its supplementary chargesheet against K Kavitha, the document should be made available to the accused on the first day of the hearing to save time. The trial court is to set short dates for reviewing these documents, ensuring that the Investigating Officer (IO) provides clear and properly organized copies. The accused are expected to review these documents and report any deficiencies within two days to avoid unnecessary delays in the scrutiny process.

The High Court’s directions were issued while addressing a plea from Arun Ramachandran Pillai, who challenged the commencement of arguments on the charges, arguing that it should be deferred until the CBI completes its investigation. The trial court had dismissed his plea, prompting him to approach the High Court. Pillai’s counsel argued that the possibility of additional accused being included in the case necessitated delaying the trial to avoid prejudicing the defense.

However, the High Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s decision. It noted that the trial court had already considered Pillai’s concerns, acknowledging that 16 individuals had been chargesheeted and that hearing arguments on the charges would take significant time. If the CBI files additional chargesheets, the ongoing hearing can be paused, and copies of the new chargesheets will be provided to all accused. Consequently, the High Court concluded that there was no need to intervene at this stage, deeming the trial court’s order appropriate and free from any errors.

The High Court’s decision aims to balance the need for a speedy trial with ensuring that all accused have adequate time to review charges and prepare their defense. The directions also stress efficient document handling to avoid delays. This case, involving prominent politicians and significant public interest, underscores the judicial system’s efforts to manage complex cases promptly while ensuring fairness to all parties.

Representing Arun Ramachandran Pillai were advocates Nitesh Rana, Anuj Tiwari, Kaushal Kait, Deepak Nagar, Nikhil Kohli, Soumya Kumar, and Monika. The CBI’s legal team included Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh, along with advocates Manu Mishra, Shreya Dutt, and Imaan Khera.

Overall, the High Court’s directions aim to streamline the trial process in the Delhi excise policy case, ensuring timely justice while upholding the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Madras High Court: Senior Lawyers Not Paying Juniors is Exploitation and Violates Fundamental Rights

by News

The Madras High Court recently addressed the issue of senior lawyers not paying junior lawyers, calling it a form of exploitation that violates fundamental rights. This decision came from a bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan, who emphasized that the practice of not paying junior lawyers even a minimum stipend is unfair and exploitative. The court pointed out that young lawyers, despite their talent and hard work, struggle to make a living because senior lawyers do not compensate them adequately.

The bench referred to Section 6 of the Advocates Act of 1961, which mandates that Bar Councils must ensure the welfare of all lawyers registered with them. The court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to come up with guidelines to set a minimum amount that must be paid to junior lawyers by their seniors. The court insisted that it is the responsibility of the Bar Council to protect the interests of junior lawyers and ensure their livelihood.

This issue was highlighted during the hearing of a petition by Farida Begum, who raised concerns about the delay in processing around 200 applications for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund. Advocate CK Chandrasekar, representing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, explained that the payments were delayed because the Tamil Nadu government had not yet released the necessary funds. Furthermore, he noted that the Welfare Scheme had not been approved by the Puducherry government, resulting in no benefits being disbursed to lawyers in Puducherry.

In response, the bench directed the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry governments to provide details on the number of lawyers eligible for the benefits, the funds allocated and released, and other relevant information. The court expressed concern over the practice of senior lawyers not paying juniors, stating that it is an unacceptable form of exploitation. The bench stressed that the Bar Council must take steps to ensure that junior lawyers receive a minimum stipend when they work for senior lawyers.

The court emphasized that extracting work from junior lawyers without paying them is a violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution. Young lawyers, who start their careers with hope and enthusiasm, must be supported by senior lawyers and the legal community to ensure their survival and growth in the profession. The court noted that it is essential to fix a minimum stipend to protect the livelihood of junior lawyers.

The Madras High Court’s decision underscores the importance of fair compensation for junior lawyers and the responsibility of senior lawyers and Bar Councils to support the welfare of all lawyers. This move aims to address the exploitation of junior lawyers and ensure that they are adequately compensated for their work, thereby upholding their fundamental rights and promoting a fair and just legal profession.

Advocate C Elangovan represented the petitioner Farida Begum in this case, while Additional Government Pleader A Tamilvanan appeared for the Puducherry government. Advocate CK Chandrasekar appeared for the TN Bar Council, and Advocate S John J Raja Singh represented the Tamil Nadu government. The court has asked the TN Bar Council to provide instructions on the issue by June 12.

Delhi Will Turn into a Barren Desert if Deforestation Continues, Warns Delhi High Court

by News

The Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns about Delhi’s future environment, warning that ongoing deforestation could turn the city into a barren desert. This warning came during discussions on setting up a committee to protect forests in Delhi. The committee, led by former judge Justice Najmi Waziri, was formed after a request from the high court on April 4.

In a hearing on May 31, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela mentioned that Delhi recently recorded a temperature of 52.9 degrees Celsius on May 30, 2024. However, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) later clarified that this high reading at Mungeshpur on May 29 was due to a sensor error.

Justice Gedela stressed the urgent need to address deforestation to stop Delhi from becoming a desert. The court reviewed a report by Justice Waziri, which highlighted the need for proper infrastructure to support the committee’s work. The chief conservator of forests informed the court that the necessary resources had been approved by the minister of the general administration department and were waiting for final approval from the cabinet and the Lieutenant Governor.

Advocate Gautam Narayan, acting as a friend of the court, emphasized the need to provide the required resources quickly. He warned against delays due to bureaucracy, stating that the needed infrastructure and other facilities should be provided without delay. Justice Gedela ordered that the approval process should not take longer than June 15 and that the infrastructure should be ready within 15 days after approval.

The court’s concerns highlight the urgent need for environmental protection in Delhi to combat rising temperatures and prevent severe ecological damage.