Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the instant matter, the State Bar Council of MP issued a communication calling on lawyers in the State to abstain from judicial work in order to protest against the High Court’s scheme mandating the disposal of 25 oldest cases every quarter.
The Court urged the Resident Doctors to call-off their strike and request their fellow doctors to rejoin their duties and the same is accepted by the doctors representing JARD.
The Calcutta High Court said that no coercive measures or disciplinary action would be taken against advocates who appear before courts for the interest of their clients.
The press and the Media had a duty to report the incident for the benefit of the public, but there is also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The deepfake videos showing plaintiff being beaten up are nothing but an over-sensationalisation and depiction of facts which are patently false.
Senior Advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party’s spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia was physically manhandled, and his band was snatched.
Allahabad High Court also directed SIT, already constituted by the State Government to intimate about the action taken on the first information reports lodged by lawyers in respect of the incident, while submitting its interim report.
Supreme Court considered the fact that the accused was represented by his son, as the Advocates were on strike in Rajasthan and hence, the petitioner could not properly represent himself before the court of law.
The direction came in a contempt petition filed by Common Cause NGO which argued that the BCI was not taking steps to prevent advocates from going on strikes.
Supreme Court said that it will take recourse to the coercive arm of law, if any such incident occurs in the future. Also warned that there shall be no impediment in the work of legal defense counsel.
Criticising the practice of the advocates going on strike and abstaining them from work, the Court observed that it is appropriate that their genuine grievances are considered by some forum so that such strikes can be avoided.
7-Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court said that the Kanpur Lawyers by using abusive unparliamentary language and outrageous behavior during the strike period, scandalised and lowered the authority of the Court and undermined the sanctity of the Institution and the dignity of the entire district judiciary, have committed the contempt of Court.
7-Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court said that despite sincere efforts being made by this Court, the lawyers are adamant not to perform their work in the Court and their actions are creating hurdle in dispensation of justice, which is nothing but a sort of contempt of Court.
Allahabad High Court: J.J. Munir, J., expressed that, The Members of the Bar are free to hold a meeting to condole the
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq, CJ. and Sujoy Paul, J., decided on a petition which was filed
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J., addressed the instant petition alleging illegal and unorganised exercise of right to strike. The Bench
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Prateek Jalan, J., has taken cognizance of the news item published in
F.03/06/HESMA/2017/HP-II/874-886.—Whereas the vide Home Department GNCTD notification No. F.03/06/HESMA/2017/HP-II/4183-95 dated 24.10.2019 HESMA was imposed against contract employees engaged through outsourced agency in
Supreme Court: The vacation bench of Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant, JJ has deferred the hearing on a plea seeking protection of
On 14 February 2019, a suicide terror attack was conducted by a Pakistan based terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammad, leading to the martyrdom of