Supreme Court Questions Lawyer’s Side Job as Journalist Violates Bar Rules

by News

Supreme Court recently raised concerns about a practicing lawyer who was also working as a journalist, pointing out that Bar Council rules prohibit such dual roles. This issue came up in the case “Mohd Kamran vs State of Uttar Pradesh and anr,” where Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih questioned the appellant, Mohd Kamran, on his dual professions.

Justice Oka highlighted the Bar Council of India rules, which prevent advocates from engaging in other employment while practicing law. He stressed that such a combination could lead to conflicts of interest, advising Kamran to choose between being a lawyer or a journalist.

The Supreme Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council and the Bar Council of India to provide their responses on the appropriate action to be taken against Kamran for potentially violating these rules.

This case is connected to an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order that dismissed criminal defamation proceedings against former parliamentarian Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Singh had written letters to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Chief Secretary in September 2022, claiming that Kamran had various criminal cases pending against him. Kamran argued that Singh called him a conspirator and thief, and spread this information on social media and in newspapers to damage his reputation.

Additionally, Singh is facing separate charges of sexual harassment brought by six Indian wrestlers. On June 15, 2023, police filed a chargesheet against Singh for offenses including outraging modesty, making sexually colored remarks, stalking, and criminal intimidation, under different sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The wrestlers had earlier sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure an FIR was registered against Singh, which the Delhi Police confirmed was done, with the investigation ongoing.

In a related case, a minor wrestler also accused Singh of similar misconduct but later withdrew her complaint, leading to a cancellation report under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Throughout these legal challenges, Singh has pleaded not guilty.

This case highlights the importance of professional conduct rules and the complications that can arise when someone tries to work in two roles that may conflict with each other.

Allahabad High Court Mandates Police Checks for Lawyer Licenses

by News

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the criminal background of individuals applying for a license to practice law. The court took action after a concerning incident where a person with a history of fourteen criminal cases, including four convictions, managed to obtain a license to practice as a lawyer. The court’s directive involves incorporating a police report as part of the evaluation process for aspiring lawyers.

The division bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vinod Diwakar, expressed concern about the lax procedures that allowed an individual with a significant criminal record to enter the legal profession unnoticed. In response, the court instructed the Uttar Pradesh government and the State Bar Council to implement a thorough due diligence process.

The court’s order specifies that a police report should be solicited from relevant police stations for both pending and new applications for a law license. Drawing parallels with the process of obtaining passports, the court suggests that a provisional license can be issued while awaiting the police report. If the subsequent report reveals adverse information, the provisional license can be revoked.

This legal development unfolded during the court’s consideration of a petition that highlighted the case of an individual with fourteen pending criminal cases, four of which resulted in convictions. The petitioner raised concerns about the person securing a law license by concealing this criminal history. The court, noting the urgency of the matter, directed the State Bar Council to expedite disciplinary proceedings, ideally concluding within three months.

The court stressed the potential harm to society and the legal community if individuals with criminal backgrounds are allowed to practice law unchecked. It cited the Advocates Act, emphasizing its prohibition against admitting individuals with such histories to the legal profession. The court expressed surprise at the lack of a robust procedure within the Bar Council to enforce its own rules, highlighting the need for the council to evolve measures for rigorous background checks.

The judges underscored the obligation of applicants to disclose any criminal charges or convictions during the application process. Failure to provide such information could result in the rejection of the application. The court questioned the apparent absence of a well-defined procedure within the Bar Council to ensure compliance with these principles.

In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court’s directive serves as a crucial step towards ensuring that the legal profession remains free from individuals with a questionable criminal history. By mandating the inclusion of a police report in the licensing process and emphasizing timely disciplinary proceedings, the court aims to fortify the integrity of the legal fraternity in Uttar Pradesh. The State Bar Council has been urged to implement these measures promptly to safeguard the reputation of the legal profession and protect the interests of society at large.