Home
About
Jobs
Events
Courses
Exams
Blog
Recruiter
Pricing

Sign In

Applicant Recruiter/Advertiser

Categories

Legal Blog

Publish with us

Filter Clear

Aug 02, 2023

Can Lawyers Advertise Their Services In India?

Introduction Lawyers are an essential part of the justice system in India, providing legal advice and representation to individuals and organizations. However, the question arises, can lawyers advertise their services in India? The answer to this question is not straightforward, as there are rules and regulations that govern the advertising of legal services in the country. In this article, we will explore the legality of advertising legal services in India and examine the rules set forth by the Bar Council of India (BCI). We will also discuss the various ways in which lawyers and law firms can showcase their presence and attract potential clients without violating these rules. Additionally, we will look into avenues for finding talented law students and graduates to join their teams. The legal profession is rapidly evolving, and understanding the rules and regulations around advertising legal services is crucial for lawyers and law firms in India. So let's dive into the details of what is allowed and what is not allowed when it comes to advertising legal services in India. Is it legal in India for advocates or law firms to advertise their services? The question of whether lawyers and law firms in India can advertise their services is a complicated one, as it involves various rules and regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India (BCI). As per the BCI rules, advocates are prohibited from soliciting clients or advertising their services in any manner. This means that lawyers cannot engage in any form of advertising or promotion that may be interpreted as a solicitation. Under the Advocates Act 1961, the Bar Council of India holds the power to make rules governing the professional conduct and etiquette of lawyers in the country. As part of Chapter II of Part VI of the BCI Rules, the Bar Council of India has set forth several regulations outlining these standards. One of these rules, Rule 36 as outlined in Section IV of Chapter II of Part VI of the BCI Rules, specifically addresses the issue of advertising and soliciting work. According to this rule, lawyers are prohibited from engaging in any form of advertising or solicitation of work. This is aimed at ensuring that the legal profession is not commercialized and maintains its dignity and integrity. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. For example, lawyers can list their names in legal directories or on their law firm's website. They can also provide legal advice and information to the public through articles or blog posts, as long as it is not done in a way that can be perceived as solicitation. Additionally, lawyers can participate in legal aid programs or pro bono work, which can help to promote their services without violating the rules. The rationale behind these restrictions is to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession and prevent it from being commercialized. Advocates are expected to build their reputation and client base through their legal skills and ethical conduct, rather than through advertising or marketing. What do BCI rules say? The Bar Council of India (BCI) is the regulatory body for the legal profession in India. The BCI has framed rules under Chapter II of Part VI of the BCI Rules that lay down the ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ for lawyers in India. The BCI rules are made under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 36 of the BCI rules, which is provided in Section IV (Chapter II of Part VI of BCI Rules), addresses the issue of advertising and soliciting work. According to this rule, lawyers are prohibited from engaging in any form of advertising or solicitation of work. This includes but is not limited to, using audio-visual media, pamphlets, signboards, websites, or social media platforms for advertising or soliciting work. The BCI has taken the stance that allowing lawyers to advertise would be against the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. The primary purpose of this rule is to prevent the commercialization of the legal profession and ensure that the lawyers conduct themselves in a professional and ethical manner. It is important for lawyers to adhere to the BCI rules and regulations to maintain the standards of the legal profession in India. Any violations of these rules may result in disciplinary action by the BCI, which could include suspension or cancellation of the lawyer's license to practice law. How can lawyers show their presence? Lawyers in India are restricted from advertising their services in a direct and explicit manner by the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. However, they can still show their presence and promote their services through certain means that comply with the BCI Rules. One way is by maintaining a professional website with general information about their practice areas, qualifications, and contact details. The website should not contain any content that can be construed as solicitation or advertisement of legal services, such as client testimonials, success rates, or fees. Another way is by participating in legal conferences, seminars, and other events that can help establish their credibility and network with potential clients or colleagues. They can also contribute articles or legal opinions in reputable publications or online forums, as long as it is not done for the purpose of soliciting clients. Lawyers can also leverage social media platforms like LinkedIn to showcase their expertise and connect with potential clients or employers. However, they should avoid making direct solicitations for legal services or making any misleading claims about their qualifications or experience. Where could Lawyers find potential law students/graduates to join them? There are several ways in which lawyers can find potential law students or graduates to join their practice. One common way is through law school recruiting programs, where firms or individual lawyers may participate in job fairs, on-campus interviews, or other recruiting events at law schools. Additionally, many law schools have career services offices that can help connect lawyers with potential candidates and provide resources for job postings. Another option is to post job openings on legal job websites or social media platforms such as LinkedIn. This can help lawyers reach a wider pool of potential candidates beyond those directly affiliated with a particular law school or recruiting program. Networking and word-of-mouth referrals can also be effective in finding potential candidates. Lawyers can attend legal conferences, join professional associations or organizations, and participate in local bar associations to connect with other legal professionals and potentially find candidates through their networks. It is important to note that while lawyers are free to advertise their job openings and seek out potential candidates, they must comply with any applicable laws or regulations governing employment practices, such as those related to equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination. While traditional methods of recruitment, such as job fairs, referrals, and online job postings, continue to be used by lawyers to find potential law students and graduates to join them, there are now more innovative and efficient ways to connect with candidates. Legalbots.in is one such platform that can help lawyers find talented candidates. Legalbots.in is a legal technology platform that connects law firms and legal departments with talented law students and recent graduates looking for internships, jobs, or freelance work. The platform uses advanced algorithms and machine learning to match job requirements with candidates' skills and interests, allowing lawyers to quickly and easily find the right talent. Through legalbots.in, lawyers can post job listings, review resumes and profiles, and even conduct interviews directly on the platform. Additionally, the platform provides valuable resources such as resume writing tips and career advice for law students and recent graduates. By using legalbots.in, lawyers can expand their reach and connect with a wider pool of talented candidates. This can ultimately lead to more successful hires and a more diverse and dynamic workforce. In simpler terms, advertising refers to the act of promoting and publicizing a product, service, or innovation to increase its recognition among the target audience. However, in India, the law prohibits advocates and lawyers from advertising their work, which means that any legal services offered by them cannot be advertised. Law Related To Advertising Lawyer’s Work The Bar Council of India, as per Section 49(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, has the authority to establish rules and regulations to fulfill its functions under the Act. The Indian Bar Council has framed Bar Council Rules which cover various aspects such as the procedure for electing members, advocates' professional ethics, duties to be followed by advocates, and the classification of people to be enrolled as advocates. The ban on advertising legal services by legal practitioners in India is a concept derived from the UK, where the legal profession is considered noble, and commercializing it through promotions is viewed as dishonorable and may result in unfair practices. In India, this ban on advertising legal services is highlighted in the Bar Council Rules, specifically Rule 36, which restricts advocates from advertising their services. Rule 36 of the Bar Council Rules states the following – "An advocate is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned. Even the signboard, nameplate or stationery of an advocate should not indicate that he is or has been the President or Member of a Bar Council or of any Association or that he has been associated with any person or organisation or with any particular cause or matter or that he specialises in any particular type of work or that he has been a Judge or an Advocate General." An advocate/lawyer in India who disregards Rule 36 of the BCI Rules and advertises their work, can be held liable for professional misconduct and can be prosecuted under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Reason Behind The Prohibition Of Advertisements The reason behind the prohibition of advertisements for legal services is elaborated in Rule 36 of the Bar Council Rules, which is in line with the Advocates Act, 1961. This rule restricts advocates from advertising or soliciting their work or engaging in any related activities. In India, the legal profession is highly respected and considered noble, as legal practitioners work towards providing justice and serve a social cause. The nature of legal services is benevolent, and advertising by lawyers is not deemed honorable. The reasons behind the prohibition of lawyers’ advertising are as follows: - To maintain the integrity of the legal profession: The primary duty of a lawyer is to provide access to justice and serve a social cause. Allowing lawyers to advertise their services could shift their focus from providing legal aid to building a personal brand through advertising, which is not in line with the noble nature of the profession. To prevent unethical practices: Advertising can lead to increased competition, which may cause lawyers to resort to unethical practices to attract clients. Furthermore, advertising expenses may lead to higher fees charged by lawyers, resulting in a decline in the quality of legal services. To prevent a disparity in legal representation: Small or mid-sized law firms may not have the resources necessary to advertise their services, which could lead to large firms dominating the legal market. This can result in a lack of representation for those who cannot afford the services of larger firms. To prevent misleading information: Advertisements can be misleading, and the use of hyperbole can be harmful to the public. Advertising legal services can violate ethical standards and harm the interests of those seeking legal aid. Amendment To Rule 36 The Bar Council of India made an amendment to Rule 36 of the Bar Council Rules in 2008 to liberalize the strict ban on lawyer advertising. Earlier, lawyers/advocates were strictly prohibited from advertising their legal services, and any violation of this rule would result in punishment. However, the amendment now allows advocates/lawyers to showcase their basic information such as their name, contact details, qualifications, and areas of practice on their websites, subject to the provision of a disclaimer. The disclaimer must clearly state that the information furnished on the website is true and genuine. It is important to note that the amendment only permits the advertising of specific information by advocates. If an advocate provides any extra information beyond what is allowed, they can be held liable for professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and can be punished accordingly. Related Case Laws The justification behind prohibiting Indian Lawyers advertising their work is highlighted through various precedents. There have been contrasting views regarding the validity of Rule 36 of the BCI and the question of what can be considered as advertising of legal services. C.D. Sekkizhar v. Secretary Bar Council: in this case, the court stated that it was improper for advocates to advertise their work as it can create jealousy and was unsuitable to the noble profession. N. Sharma, Advocate v. the State of Haryana: the court observed that the legal profession is noble in nature and is not a trade, thus, advocates should work to serve justice to clients. Government Pleader v. S.A Pleader: The court while examining this case, held that a lawyer sending a postcard containing his address, name, description would be considered as an advertisement and the lawyer would be liable for breaching the advocate’s professional code. Tata Yellow Pages v MTNL: the Supreme court in this case supported the validity of Rule 36 of BCI rules. it held that right to advertise falls within the purview of commercial speech and is thus protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution which guarantees right to speech and expression. Writ Petition filed by V. B. Joshi: This writ petition challenged the restriction on advertising of legal work, as imposed through Rule 36 of BCI rules. The court relaxed the restrictions and bought an amendment to Rule 36 by allowing the legal community and professionals to promote themselves and provide precise information about their field along with an authenticity guaranteeing declaration. That this Rule will not stand in the way of advocates furnishing website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India. Any additional other input in the particulars than approved by the Bar Council of India will be deemed to be violation of Rule 36 and such advocates are liable to be proceeded with misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.** The following has been approved to use in the schedule : BCI RULES Name Address Telephone Numbers E-mail id Enrolment Number Date of Enrolment Name of State Bar Council where originally enrolled Name of State Bar Council on whose roll name stands currently Name of the Bar Association of which the Advocate is Member Professional and Academic Qualifications Areas of Practice (Eg.: Civil Criminal Taxation, Labour etc.) In conclusion, while the Bar Council of India has put restrictions on advocates and law firms to advertise their services, there are certain ways to show their presence in the market without violating the rules. They can make use of their websites and social media handles to educate the public and showcase their expertise. In addition, legal recruitment platforms like Legalbots.in offer an excellent opportunity for lawyers to connect with potential law students/graduates for recruitment purposes. It is important for lawyers to understand the BCI rules and abide by them while also leveraging the available resources to expand their practice and find new talent to join them. By doing so, they can not only establish a strong presence in the legal industry but also contribute to the growth of the profession as a whole.

Sumasri

Nov 17, 2022

List of National Law Universities in India

National Law Universities (NLU) or National Law Schools are public law schools and the most desired law schools in India. NLUs in India has been established by the Acts of the State governments. NLUs in India are single-discipline universities. They offer integrated honours and law degree programmes. Law colleges established under NLU fall under the supervision of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State in question. NLUs were created on the pattern of IIMs and IITs. NLUs have changed the face of legal education in India. In fact, India is the only country in the world which has universities for legal discipline alone. Today, we have 23 NLUs affiliated with the Bar Council of India (BCI) in India, out of which 22 are admitting students through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) (National Law University, Delhi has its own separate test, i.e, AILET). From 1987 to 2007, there were only seven NLUs each having its own test. In 2015, the seeds of the CLAT Consortium were sown and participating NLUs deliberated to found the Consortium in the larger interest of conducting the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), a national entrance examination for admission under various law programs in the NLUs. The Consortium became the legal entity when it was registered in Bangalore under the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, of 2019 in which 16 NLUs signed and became the founding members of the Consortium. The remaining NLUs (except National Law University, Delhi) subsequently joined the Consortium. It has three permanent members, i.e., National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore, National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad, and National Law Institute (NLIU), Bhopal. Below is a list of all the national law schools in India: 1. National Law School of India University, Bengaluru The first NLU was the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), located in Bangalore, which admitted its first batch in 1988. It has consistently been ranked as the best institute for law in India. At present, NLSIU Bangalore offers BA LLB at the UG level while at the PG level it offers programmes such as LLM, MPP, MBL and PG Diploma. 2. NLIU, Bhopal National Law Institute University Bhopal (NLIU Bhopal) is a public law school and a National Law University in the Indian city of Bhopal. It is the second law school created under the National Law School system, having been founded in 1997 by the state of Madhya Pradesh. 3. NALSAR, Hyderabad NALSAR University of Law, officially known as the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, is a National Law University in Secunderabad, Hyderabad. An Act of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature founded the University in 1998. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has accredited it with an "A" rating. The University provides full-time UG, PG, doctoral, and diploma programmes in law and management. 4. NUJS, Kolkata The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS or NUJS) is an excellent National Law University located in Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. It is also known as the Columbia of the East. NUJS was founded in 1999 by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in collaboration with the West Bengal government. 5. NLU, Jodhpur National Law University, Jodhpur (NLUJ) is a National Law University created by the Rajasthan State Legislature under the National Law University, Jodhpur, Act, 1999. The university's first UG and PG batch was accepted in 2001, with the Undergraduate batch graduating in 2006 and the university's first convocation taking place in 2007. 6. HNLU, Raipur Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), founded in 2003, is a public law school and a National Law University in the Indian city of New Raipur. The university is named after Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah, a former Chief Justice of India. It is one of India's independent law schools, the sixth in a sequence of such national law schools. The Government of Chhattisgarh created it as a centre for legal excellence under the Hidayatullah National University of Law, Chhattisgarh, Act (Act No.10 of 2003). The institution provides an integrated B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) programme, an L.L.M. programme, and a PhD programme. 7. GNLU, Gandhinagar The Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) is a National Law University founded in the state of Gujarat under the Gujarat National Law University Act, 2003. The University is modelled after the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bangalore. The GNLU was the country's sixth National Law University (NLU). 8. NUALS, Kochi The National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) is an Indian National Law University and a public law school in Kochi. It is Kerala's first and only National Law University, as well as one of India's 23 NLUs. The Common Law Admission Test is used to determine admission to the university. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies was founded by the National University of Advanced Legal Studies Act, 2005, which was enacted by the Kerala Legislative Assembly in 2005. 9.RMLNLU, Lucknow Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (RMLNLU) is a public law school and a National Law University in the Indian city of Lucknow. It was founded in 2005 as the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law Institute and officially opened on January 4, 2006. 10. RGNUL, Patiala RGNUL (Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law) is a public law school and a National Law University in Patiala, Punjab, India. The Punjab Government created it in 2006 (Punjab Act No. 12 of 2006) as a university specialising in legal education. 11. CNLU, Patna Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) is a public law school and a National Law University in Patna, Bihar, India. The Government of Bihar established it as a public university dedicated to legal education in 2006 (Bihar Act 24 of 2006). The university's chancellor is the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. It is one of India's self-governing law schools. The campus is around 18 acres in size and is located in the heart of the city in the Mithapur region. 12. National Law University, Delhi It was founded in 2008 by Act No. 1 of 2008 of NCT Delhi in the National Capital Territory of Delhi at the urging of the Delhi High Court. The institution began operations in temporary structures in 2008. By 2010, the college's construction had been finished and it was fully operational. It is now recognised as India's second-best NLU. It conducts its own law entrance examinations through AILET. 13.NLU Odisha, Cuttack National Law University Odisha (NLUO) is a public law school and a National Law University in India located at Cuttack, Odisha. It was established in 2008 (Act 4 of 2008) under the National Law University Act, commencing its first batch in July 2009. The institute offers undergraduate (integrated B.A., LL.B., BBA/LL.M, M.Phil., PhD) and post-graduate courses in law. 14. DSNLU, Visakhapatnam The DSNLU Act of 2008 established the Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU) at Sabbavaram, Anakapalli district, Andhra Pradesh, India. It provides a five-year integrated B.A. LLB. (Hons.) education to qualified undergraduate students through a centralised admission process based on the Common Law Admission Test. The University also provides postgraduate courses, including the one-year LL.M. programme, as well as PhD and LL.D. programmes. In the first phase, the university is situated in Nyayaprastha in Sabbavaram, with a built-up area of 75.5 acres. The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly's founding Act of 2008 (Act No. 32 of 2008) allowed for the main campus at Visakhapatnam. 15. NLU Assam, Guwahati National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam (NLUJA or NLUJAA) is a National Law University located in Guwahati, Assam, India. It was established in 2009 through an Act passed by the State Legislature of Assam (Assam Act XXV of 2009) as a public university dedicated to the field of legal education and the first batch was started in 2011. 16. NUSRL, Ranchi The National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) is a law school in Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. In 2010, the State of Jharkhand created the fourteenth National Law University of India by legislative legislation (Act No. 4 of 2010). The 63.76-acre campus is one of India's major National Law Universities. It is also regarded as the tenth finest institution among NLUs in India. 17. TNNLU, Trichy Tamil Nadu National Law University (TNNLU), formerly known as Tamil Nadu National Law School (TNNLS), is a National Law University in Tamil Nadu, India. The Common Law Admission Test is used to determine admission to the university. The Tamil Nadu Government created it in 2012 by the Tamil Nadu National Law School Act, 2012,[1] with an initial donation of 100 crores (equivalent to 160 crores or US$20 million in 2020). The Act was changed in 2018 to replace the phrase "School" with the word "University." 18. Dr B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat Dr B.R. Ambedkar National Law University (DBRANLU) is a National Law University in Sonipat, Haryana, India. It is the 23rd National Law University in India, founded in 2012 by the State Government of Haryana by State Legislature Act No. 15 of 2012. The university's name was changed from 'The National Law University Haryana' to 'Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University Sonepat' in 2014, in honour of B. R. Ambedkar, social reformer and author of the Indian Constitution. 19. MNLU, Mumbai The Maharashtra National Legal University Mumbai (MNLU Mumbai) is a National Law University in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, and is one of the country's most distinguished law schools. On March 20, 2014, the Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai was formed under the Maharashtra National Law University Act 2014. MNLU Mumbai provides a five-year integrated B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) curriculum as well as LL.M. programmes. Students must pass the CLAT in order to be admitted to a UG or PG programme. 20. MNLU, Nagpur Maharashtra National Law University Nagpur (MNLU) (also known as National Law University, Nagpur or NLU Nagpur) founded in the year 2016, is a public law school created by the government under the Maharashtra National Law University Act (Maharashtra Act No. VI of 2014). The university is India's 19th National Law University and is located in Nagpur, Maharashtra's Orange City. The institution is led by the Chief Justice of India. 21. HPNLU, Shimla Himachal Pradesh National Law University Shimla (HPNLU Shimla) is a National Law University in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India. It is India's twenty-first National Law University. The Himachal Pradesh High Court governs NLU Shimla. The Himachal Pradesh National Law University (HPNLU, Shimla) was created by an Act of the Legislature passed by the State Legislature in 2016. (Act 16 of 2016). The University began operations on October 5, 2016. The original batch of B.A.LL. B. 22. MNLU, Aurangabad MNLU Aurangabad (MNLU Aurangabad, MNLUA) is a National Law University located in Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India. It was established in 2017 by the Maharashtra government as the third and final university to be established under the Maharashtra National Law University Act, 2014, following the Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai and the Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. It is India's 21st National Law University. 23. NLU, Jabalpur Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur is an Indian National Law University in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The Madhya Pradesh Dharmashastra National Law University Ordinance of 2018 created it. As of 2021, the university's chancellor is the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Sumasri

Oct 26, 2022

The 50th Chief Justice of India - Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

On 7 October 2022 as per constitutional protocol, the Ministry of Law and Justice had directed via an MoP (memorandum of procedure) on the appointment of the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court judges, to the present CJI for sending his recommendations for his successor. On October 11, 2022, the current CJI Justice Umesh Uday Lalit recommended the name of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as his successor in the presence of other Supreme Court judges. Justice UU Lalit had taken charge in August 2022 from the former CJI N.V. Ramana. After a brief tenure of 74 days, Justice U.U. Lalit will retire from the CJI position. On 17 October 2022 President of India, Droupadi Murmu appointed Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud as the Chief Justice of India effective from November 9, 2022. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is presently the senior-most judge after the CJI. He would have a tenure of two years and demit office on 10 November 2024. Justice Chandrachud will be the 50th CJI of India. How is the CJI appointed in India? Under clause (2) of Article 124 of the Indian Constitution, the President is responsible for the appointment of the Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court judges, after consultation with the sitting judges of the Supreme Court if it may deem necessary. Apart from being an Indian citizen, the essentials for becoming the CJI of India are - The person must have been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or Have been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or Be in the opinion of the President, who is a distinguished jurist. Earlier for more than two decades, India has followed the old collegium system, for the appointment of judges, which consists of five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. When the names were first suggested by the collegium the central government used to get a background check done by the International Bureau. Although, between the government and the collegium, the decision of the collegium prevails. However, the term ‘collegium’ is not mentioned in the Indian Constitution, rather it only mentions the President taking ‘consultation’ from the sitting judges during the appointment process. Due to its ambiguities, this method of appointment was being challenged in the courts severally, leading to a landmark decision in First Judges Case, where it was held that recommendations made by the CJI to the President can be refused for cogent reasons, which automatically made the President in a more influential position in deciding the appointments. However, with subsequent cases and judgements, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines in the Third Judges Case, that decisions for the appointment of CJI and other Supreme Court judges will be taken by a majority of the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The country follows this collegium system with an aim to keep the judiciary independent from the executive in matters of appointment. Hence, after the collegium’s recommendations are finalised and received from the CJI, the Law Minister will put up the recommendations to the Prime Minister who will advise the President on the matter of appointment. Besides the adjudicatory role, the CJI also plays the role of the administrative head of the Court. In the administrative capacity, the Chief Justice exercises the prerogative of allocating cases to particular benches. CJI also decides the number of judges that will hear a case. It is also to be noted that the CJI can be removed by an order of the President only after an address by Parliament has been presented to the President. This should be supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament, i.e., by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. However, according to Article 124 (4), the CJI can be removed directly if there is evidentiary proof of misbehaviour or incapacity Who is Justice D.Y. Chandrachud? Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, presently the executive chairman of National Legal Services Authority, is the son of former CJI Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, who has been the longest serving CJI of India (1978 - 1985), and his legacy will now be taken ahead by his son, making this the first time a father and son have held the position. Justice Chandrachud completed his BA with Honours in Economics from St Stephen's College in New Delhi, after which he took up an LLB course from the Campus Law Centre of Delhi University. Advancing his understanding of the legal arena further, he opted for an LLM and Doctor of Jurisprudential Sciences (SJD) degrees from the renowned Harvard Law School in the United States. He practised as an advocate in the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Gujarat, Calcutta, Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi before becoming a judge of the Bombay High Court. he became one of the youngest lawyers to be designated senior advocate in the country at the age of 39 years, and was soon raised to the ranks of Additional Solicitor General of India from 1998 - 2000. On 29 March 2000, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court. He took oath as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on 31 October 2013, three years after which he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Apart from his contributions to the judiciary, Justice Chandrachud was also a visiting professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Mumbai, as well as a visiting professor at the Oklahoma University School of Law, US. Justice Chandrachud has often been seen batted for his liberal and progressive views such as the higher representation of women in the judiciary, freedom of expression and press freedom. He can also be credited for the work done by the Supreme Court’s e-committee on the e-courts programme under his chairmanship. Chandrachud, chairman of the e-committee, also oversaw the top court’s move to a virtual hearing system during the pandemic. Notable Judgements by Justice D.Y Chandrachud Right from stressing the importance of dissent as the security valve of democracy to overturning his father Justice YV Chandrachud’s judgement (relating to fundamental rights in the ADM Jabalpur case), Justice DY Chandrachud’s judgments and opinions have often paved the way for many reforms. They have also received appreciation for being progressive in their interpretation of the law. Some of the key rulings given by Justice Chandrachud are as follows: Abortion rights for women (X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi) In 2022 a petition filed by a 25-year-old unmarried woman seeking an abortion, the bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna, and Justice JB Pardiwala passed a landmark judgment upholding the rights of reproductive autonomy of an unmarried woman. “The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy give an unmarried woman the right of choice as to whether or not to bear a child on the same footing as that of a married woman,” said Justice Chandrachud. The judgment held the right of married/unmarried women to seek abortion of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship. The judgement also recognised marital rape, in the case of such abortions. Right to Privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India) In August 2017, a nine-judge bench gave a unanimous verdict guaranteeing the fundamental right to privacy. Writing the lead opinion, Justice Chandrachud recognised the right to privacy and dignity as an intrinsic part of life. “Life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution. These rights are recognised by the Constitution as inheriting in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human element which dwells within,” Justice DY Chandrachud said. Interestingly, this judgement overruled a previous judgement which held that fundamental rights could be suspended during a time of Emergency. One of the judges who passed that verdict was his father, Justice YV Chandrachud. Sabrimala verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala) A five-judge bench upheld the right of menstruating women to visit the temple. Justice D Y Chandrachud held that the debarring of women belonging to the age group of 10-50 years by the Sabarimala Temple was contrary to constitutional morality and that it undermined the ideals of autonomy, liberty, and dignity. He added that such stigmas are not constitutionally supported. Hadiya Marriage case (Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M) Hadiya, who was a Hindu, had converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim. Kerala High Court had annulled the marriage and ordered Hadiya to be placed in the custody of her parents. In a unanimous judgement, the bench ruled against the Kerala High court. Justice Chandrachud wrote in his judgement that the Kerala High Court had touched upon an area which is out of bounds for a constitutional court. “The High Court believed that at twenty-four, Hadiya is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that she is a major, capable of taking her own decisions and is entitled to the right recognised by the Constitution to lead her life exactly as she pleases. Intimacies of marriage, including the choices that individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state. Courts as upholders of constitutional freedoms must safeguard these freedoms. Interference by the State in such matters has a serious chilling effect on the exercise of freedoms,” the judgement said. Decriminalising Section 377 IPC - Same-Sex Relationship (Navtej Johar v Union of India) In a historic judgement, a five-judge bench – then CJI Dipak Misra, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra – decriminalised ‘unnatural sex between two consenting adults. “The choice of a partner, the desire for personal intimacy and the yearning to find love and fulfilment in human relationships have a universal appeal, straddling age and time. In protecting consensual intimacies, the Constitution adopts a simple principle: the state has no business to intrude into these personal matters. Nor can societal notions of heteronormativity regulate constitutional liberties based on sexual orientation,” said Justice Chandrachud in his judgement. Decriminalising Section 497 IPC - Adultery (Joseph Shine v Union of India) Justice Chandrachud concurred with the majority opinion in decriminalising adultery. He found that section 497 IPC violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. He read down section 198(2) CrPC. He opined that decriminalising adultery was rooted in patriarchal notions and had resulted in centuries of female subjugation. Justice Chandrachud, during his tenure, has remained a voice of reason, dispensing justice through his decisive, fiercely independent and humane decisions. He has been associated with a string of high-profile and other important cases of social and constitutional importance. From his judgments on privacy to gender rights, justice Chandrachud is known for his progressive views on personal liberty, fundamental rights, and autonomy.

Sumasri

Apr 08, 2022

Legal News this Week - 08 April 2022

Zomato and Swiggy faced an Anti-trust probe The Indian antitrust watchdog ordered a wide-ranging investigation into the conduct of food delivery firms Zomato and Swiggy on Monday over whether they are operating as “neutral” following a complaint from the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI), a body that represents over 500,000 restaurants in the country. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) acknowledged a series of allegations made by NRAI on July 2021, which include food delivery firms’ practice of bundling delivery services with customers’ food orders, masking data from restaurant partners, operating cloud kitchens, “unfair and one-sided contracts” with the outlets, delayed payment cycle and charging of exorbitant commission. NRAI has further alleged that they are engaging in a dual role on their platform where they list their own cloud kitchen brands exclusively on their platform, akin to private labels, thereby creating an inherent conflict of interest in the platform’s role as an intermediary on one hand and as a participant on the other hand. The CCI is of the view that there exists a prima facie case with respect to some of the conduct of Zomato and Swiggy, which requires an investigation by the Director-General (DG), to determine whether this conduct resulted in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act read with Section 3(4). The Director-General has been directed to carry out a detailed investigation and submit the findings within 60 days, as per the CCI order dated April 6, 2022. India blocks 22 Youtube News channels The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has directed the blocking of 22 YouTube-based news channels, of which four are from Pakistan, for allegedly spreading fake news to mislead viewers. This is the first time that action has been taken against the Indian YouTube-based news publishers since the notification of the IT Rules, 2021 in February 2021. The Ministry issued an order on April 4, 2022 to block 22 Youtube channels, three Twitter accounts, one Facebook account, and one news website. With this action, the ministry has, since December 2021, issued directions for blocking 78 YouTube-based news channels and several other social media accounts on grounds related to national security, sovereignty, integrity of India, public order, etc. The blocked YouTube channels had a cumulative viewership of over 260 crores, the ministry said in an official statement, adding that they were spreading fake news and coordinated disinformation over social media on subjects sensitive from the perspective of national security, India's foreign relations, and public order. According to the ministry, multiple YouTube channels were used to post “fake news on various subjects such as the Indian Armed Forces, Jammu & Kashmir, etc.” The ministry said that the blocked Indian YouTube channels were using templates and logos of certain TV news channels, including images of their news anchors, and fake thumbnails to mislead the viewers to believe that the news was authentic. Criminal (Identification) Bill, 2022 The Rajya Sabha on April 6, 2022, passed the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022. The Bill was already passed by the Lok Sabha on April 4, 2022. The Bill seeks to authorise the collection, storage, and analysis of biometric samples of convicts and others involved in criminal matters. The Bill proposes to allow the Police to collect finger impressions, palm prints impressions, footprint impressions, photographs, iris and retina scans, and physical and biological samples. It also proposes the collection of behavioral attributes including signatures, handwriting, or any other examination referred to under Section 53 or Section 53A of CrPC. The data collected would be protected and shared through a secure mechanism so that people’s privacy was not risked. The Bill seeks to repeal The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. The over 100 years old Act’s scope was limited to capturing finger impressions, footprint impressions, and photographs of convicted prisoners and certain categories of arrested and non-convicted persons on the order of a Magistrate. Ed Sheeran on copyright issue for ‘Shape of you’ Chokri and his co-writer Ross O'Donoghue had claimed the central "Oh I" hook in Shape Of You is "strikingly similar" to the "Oh Why" refrain in their own composition, with Chokri telling the court he felt "robbed" after he heard it. However, Sheeran, McDaid and McCutcheon all denied being aware of Oh Why prior to writing Shape Of You. This was an unusual case in that it was Sheeran and his co-authors who originally launched legal proceedings, in May 2018, asking the High Court to declare they had not infringed any copyright. Two months later, Chokri and O'Donoghue issued their own claim for "copyright infringement, damages and an account of profits in relation to the alleged infringement". Judge Antony Zacaroli ruled on April 6, 2022, that Sheeran had "neither deliberately nor subconsciously copied" Chokri's song. He acknowledged there were "similarities between the one-bar phrase" in Shape of You and Oh Why, but said, "such similarities are only a starting point for a possible infringement" of copyright. After studying the musical elements, he said there were "differences between the relevant parts" of the songs, which "provide compelling evidence that the 'Oh I' phrase" in Sheeran's song "originated from sources other than Oh Why". The Shape of You songwriters took legal action in 2018 after the track's royalties were frozen when Chokri and O'Donoghue asked the Performing Rights Society (PRS) to add them to the hit's credits as co-writers. Shape of You earns Sheeran, McDaid and McCutcheon about £5m a year, the court heard, despite almost 10% of the payments having been frozen due to the dispute. In his ruling, Justice Zacaroli said Sheeran and his collaborators were justified in thinking the request from Chokri and O'Donoghue to be named as co-writers "was a tactic designed to extract a settlement". Judge Kentaji Brown - first black woman judge of the Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman to be elevated to the Supreme Court when the Democratic-controlled Senate on 7th April 2022 confirmed President Joe Biden's pick. The final vote was 53-47, with all 50 Democratic caucus members supporting Jackson, joined by Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; and Mitt Romney of Utah. In a symbolic moment, Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black woman elected to her job, presided over the vote. During confirmation hearings that spanned four days in March 2022, Jackson endured nearly 24 hours of questioning from the 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after which the panel deadlocked on approving her nomination. The vote means Jackson will take office at the end of the court's current term, likely in June or July, when Justice Stephen Breyer is expected to step down. Her appointment would not disrupt the current 6-3 conservative balance on the Supreme Court.

Gaurav

Apr 01, 2022

Legal News this Week - 01 April 2022

1. CJI Ramana launches software to transmit court orders swiftly On 31st March 2022, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana launched the Fast and Secure Transmission of Electronic Records (FASTER) software which would communicate bail orders with the digital signatures of the Supreme Court officers and this ensures privacy, safety, and security. Earlier in July 2021, a bench headed by the CJI had taken suo moto cognizance of the delayed release of convicts lodged in the Agra central jail even three days after the court had granted them bail. The court then directed the SC Secretary-General to submit a proposal suggesting the modalities to implement the FASTER system. Accordingly, the Secretary-General, in consultation with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave presented a report outlining the scheme and rules governing the implementation of such a scheme. The CJI explained 73 nodal officers have been nominated at the High Court level to oversee the process in the first phase. A judicial communication network and 1887 secure pathway email IDs have been established. Communications will be restricted to these channels only. The CJI along with other Supreme Court judges will look into the transmission of such records in the physical mode in the second phase. 2. Law minister on Judiciary Infrastructure of India The Ministry of Law and Justice recently informed the Lok Sabha that against 405 vacancies in High Courts, 175 proposals are at various stages of processing between the Government and the Supreme Court Collegium. It was also informed that recommendations from High Court Collegiums are yet to be received in respect of 230 vacancies. It was also stated that on 14 March 2022, against the sanctioned strength of 1104 judges in the High Court, 699 are in position, leaving 405 vacancies of judges to be filled. Law Minister Kiren Rijiju mentioned that the sanctioned strength of judges of High Courts has increased from 906 in 2014 to 1104 in 2022. He also added that a proposal has been received from the Chief Justice of India for setting up the National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India for arranging the adequate infrastructure of courts, as per which there will be a governing body with CJI as Patron-in-Chief. 3. Chile President signs landmark UN Environmental Treaty Recently it was announced by the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs that President Gabriel Boric has signed the UN Escazu Agreement. The Escazu Treaty is an environmental treaty signed by 24 Latin American and Caribbean nations and is the first such treaty emerging from that region. The Treaty aims to achieve “ access to environmental information, public participation in the environmental decision-making process, and access to justice in environmental dispute matters. In the 2012 UN Conference of Sustainable Development in Brazil, the treaty was negotiated and is the first in the world to include provisions on the rights of defenders of the environment. The treaty was adopted on March 4th, 2018, and came into force on April 22nd, 2021. Chile has now become the 25th signatory member and the 12th ratifying member State from the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 4. Supreme Court stayed Delhi HC order on feeding stray dogs The Supreme Court in March 2022, issued notice to the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and others on a petition challenging the Delhi High Court order relating to the feeding of stray dogs and also stayed the same. A bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose issued notice to AWBI to stay the operation of the Delhi High Court order dated 24 June 2021 that dealt with directions on the feeding of stray dogs. According to the petitioner Humane Foundation for People and Animals, the Delhi High Court had passed the guidelines regarding feeding stray dogs with reference to The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, despite there being an order passed by the Supreme Court on 2015, directing High Courts not to pass any order relating to the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules pertaining to dogs. The Delhi High Court had asked AWBI to carry out an awareness campaign as it is the duty and obligation of every Resident Welfare Associations or Municipal Corporation to ensure that every community dog in every area has access to food and water in the absence of caregivers or community dog feeders in the said area.

Content Team

Sep 21, 2021

List of Female Judges of the Supreme Court of India

The first female justice in the court was Fathima Beevi who was appointed on October 6, 1989. Since then, 11 female justices have been in the court. In this article, we have mentioned a list of all the female judges of the Supreme Court of India. List of Female Judges in Supreme Court of India S.No. Images Name Tenure Qualifications Position before being appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court Remarks Appointment Retirement 1 Fathima Beevi 6 October 1989 29 April 1992 LL.B. Judge of the Kerala High Court First Woman Judge of the Supreme Court of India 2 Sujata Manohar 8 November 1994 27 August 1999 LL.B., Barrister–at–Law Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court First Woman Judge of High Court of Bombay 3 Ruma Pal 28 January 2000 2 June 2006 Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL) Judge of the Calcutta High Court Longest-Serving Female Judge of the Supreme Court of India 4 Gyan Sudha Misra 30 April 2010 27 April 2014 Graduate Degree in Law Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court NA 5 Ranjana Desai 13 September 2011 29 October 2014 Bachelor of Laws Judge of the Bombay High Court NA 6 R. Banumathi 13 August 2014 19 July 2020 Master of Laws Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court First Woman Judge from Tamil Nadu to be elevated to the Supreme Court and Sixth Woman to be a Judge of the Indian Supreme Court 7 Indu Malhotra 27 April 2018 13 March 2021 Bachelor of Laws Member of the High-Level Committee (HLC) in the Ministry of Law and Justice First Woman Judge who was elevated directly from the Bar Council of India 8 Indira Banerjee 7 August 2018 23 September 2022 B.A. LL.B Chief Justice of the Madras High Court 8th Female Judge in the history of Supreme Court of India 9 Hima Kohli 31 August 2021 1 September 2024 M.A., LL.B Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court First Woman Judge to hold Telangana High Court 10 B. V. Nagarathna 31 August 2021 29 October 2027 B.A., LL.B Judge of the Gujarat High Court To be the First Female Chief Justice of India in September 2027 11 Bela Trivedi 31 August 2021 9 June 2025 B.Com., LL.B Judge of the Karnataka High Court First Woman Judge from the Gujarat High Court to be elevated to the Supreme Court

Gaurav

Sep 01, 2021

Nine new Supreme Court judges take oath in a single stroke

It is for the first time in its 70 year history that nine judges took the oath of office at once. Nine new judges including three women were administered the oath of office as the Supreme Court judges on 31-August-2021 (Tuesday) by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana. With the swearing-in of the new judges, the strength of the Supreme Court has now risen to 33, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI), out of the sanctioned strength of 34. The swearing-in ceremony was held in the auditorium of the Supreme Court’s additional building complex. The 9 new Supreme Court judges who were administered the oath of office as Supreme Court judges are: Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka: Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was born on 25th May 1960 and is also known as A. S. Oka. He did his LLM from Mumbai University and was enrolled on June 28, 1983, as an advocate. On 29 August 2003, A. S. Oka was elected as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court and was appointed as a permanent judge on 12 November 2005. He was appointed as a Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court on 30 April 2019 and took an oath as Karnataka High Court Chief Justice on 10 May 2019. Justice Vikram Nath: Vikram Nath was born on 24 September 1962 in Uttar Pradesh to a middle-class family. He practised at Allahabad High Court as a lawyer and on 24 September 2004, he was promoted as a judge of Allahabad High Court. On 10 September 2019, he was elevated as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court. During the 2020 Pandemic, Vikram Nath became one of the first Chief Justice of a High Court in India to live-stream proceedings on Youtube. After the retirement of Justice Surya Kant in the year 2027, Nath is in line to become Chief Justice of India. Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari: Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari was born on 29 June 1961 in Madhya Pradesh. He has worked as a practising lawyer in Gwalior and has been a Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court. He has also served as Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Justice B V Nagarathna: B V Nagarathna was born on 30th October 1962 in the Mandya district of Karnataka. She is the daughter of E.S. Venkataramiah, former Chief Justice of India. She got her law degree from Campus Law Center, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Nagarathna was enrolled with the Bar Council of Karnataka in the year 1987. She was appointed as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2008 and was appointed as a permanent judge on 17 February 2010. She is in line to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027. Justice Hima Kohli: Hima Kohli was born in New Delhi on 2 September 1959. She completed her degree in law from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi and was enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1984. Kohli was appointed as an additional judge of the Delhi High Court on 29 May 2006. She was also appointed as the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court in 2021. Justice Hima Kohli is also known as the first woman judge to occupy the position in Telangana High Court. Justice C T Ravikumar: C T Ravikumar was born on 6 January 1960. He obtained his law degree from the Government Law College, Kozhikode. On July 12 1986, he got enrolled as an advocate and started practising in civil, criminal, service and labour matters. On 5 January 2009, Ravi Kumar was appointed as an additional judge of Kerala High Court and was made a permanent judge on December 15, 2010. Justice M M Sundresh: M M Sundresh was born on July 21, 1962 at Erode district in Tamil Nadu. He obtained his law degree from the Law College of Madras. M. M. Sundresh was elevated to the Madras High Court on 31 March 2009 and his appointment was made permanent on 29 March 2011. He has practised in all the fields of law at Madras High Court. Justice Bela M Trivedi: Bela M Trivedi was born on June 10, 1960. She has practised in civil, criminal and constitutional matters as an advocate in Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad. Trivedi was elevated to the Gujarat High Court as an additional judge on February 17, 2011. In June 2011, she was transferred as an additional judge of the Rajasthan High Court. She was shifted back to the Gujarat High Court in February 2016. Justice Trivedi is the first woman judge from the Gujarat High Court to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Justice P S Narasimha: P S Narasimha was born on May 4, 1963 and brought up in Hyderabad. He is the son of renowned Justice P. Kodanda Ramayya, the founder chairman of a publishing trust known as ‘Arsha Vijnana Trust’ and also the author of “The Message of Mahabharata”. He was appointed as an Additional Solicitor General of India in 2014 and subsequently resigned in 2018. Narasimha is one of the few to be directly elevated from the advocate’s room to being a judge of the Supreme Court.

Superadmin

Aug 12, 2021

Problems with CLAT exam since 2009

Problems with CLAT exam since 2009 Common-Law Admission Test (CLAT) was introduced in 2008 under the supervision and direction of the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan. CLAT is a national level entrance test, conducted by the Consortium of NLUs for admission to 23 National Law Universities (NLU) in India: National Law School of India University, Bangalore NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata National Law Institute University, Bhopal National Law University, Jodhpur, Jodhpur Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam, Guwahati National Law University Odisha, Cuttack National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi Chanakya National Law University, Patna National Law University, Delhi Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi Tamil Nadu National Law University, Trichy Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat Since 2008, this examination has been conducted every year. Before CLAT, autonomous law schools held their own entrance exams, requiring the applicants to appear independently for each of these tests. This also meant that separate fees had to be paid for each of these exams. The scheduled dates of these exams often clashed with each other, causing aspirants to miss tests and lose opportunities. These were the reasons CLAt was introduced. However, CLAT has had a bad reputation owing to mismanagement and controversies surrounding it. There have been many discussions around it as well as many PILs have been filed over the years against it. Sequential record of glitches in CLAT CLAT, 2009 CLAT 2009 was convened by NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. The test got deferred after a leak of question papers when exam authorities discovered locked steel boxes with the test materials altered while it was on the way to test centres. CLAT, 2010 was held by National Law Institute University, Bhopal. No issues were faced by candidates this year. CLAT, 2011 In 2011, CLAT was organised by the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata. The issues faced by competitors included: The examination paper was very lengthy in relation to the time limit of two hours. Twelve questions of the several parts had underlined and highlighted answers because of the carelessness of the coordinators. CLAT, 2012 In 2012, CLAT was organized by the National Law University, Jodhpur. Controversies included: A few questions were asked out of the syllabus. The official committee also admitted 2 mistakes in the question and answer key. The first allotment list was removed from the official website the day after it was put up because of the errors it contained regarding ranks. After a few days, a new allotment list was published again on the website. CLAT, 2013 In 2013, CLAT was conducted by the Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (HNLU). This year there were mistakes in the allotment of university to the students. HNLU received a notification by Justice K. Surendra Mohan, Kerala High Court in response to a writ appeal filed by four students for stay of the allotment process, and correction of the errors. In the allotment list, applicants were wrongly assigned to Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna rather than their preferred university, National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi and this occurred despite them having a higher rank to join NUALS. CLAT, 2014 The results of the CLAT 2014 were declared by Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) and were withdrawn. Complaints were filed for re-examination. Uploaded OMR sheets were physically verified in the GNLU Campus since students demanded the same. There was a mismatch between barcode stickers on the front page and candidates’ stickers on the back page and so, reconciliation of all OMR answer sheets was done. CLAT, 2015 In the year 2015, CLAT went online and the convenor of CLAT 2015, Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University (RMLNLU) Lucknow. The candidates faced different issues, for example: The question paper contained typographical errors and the authority rejected 2 questions totally because of the ambiguity it contained. 6 questions had wrong answers in the model answer key declared by the committee. Few questions were asked from old papers and the question paper was mismatched with the real standard as set on the official website. Numerous aspirants who had scored sufficient marks to get a place in the merit list of their most preferred National Law Universities (NLUs) were allotted the less preferred ones. CLAT, 2016 In 2016, the CLAT exam was mismanaged to such an extent that an article named it ‘Cataclysm’. CLAT 2016 was conducted by Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala and the students were confronted with different issues like: During the time of opening of the application forms, it was not available for 24 hours which caused agitation in candidates. There were typographical mistakes in the question due to which the committee gave notice on the official website for changing an answer in the model answer key. One question got cancelled by the exam authority and the performance was assessed and evaluated out of 199 questions as opposed to 200. After announcing the results, the exam authority postponed the allotment list of students because of unknown reasons. CLAT, 2017 The convenor Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna encountered a writ appeal in Delhi High Court for its careless conduct in outlining the examination paper. CLAT 2017 had numerous mistakes. 4 wrong questions were rejected by the organizing committee after assessment. The exam authority accepted 3 wrong answers that were given in the answer key. No questions were asked from the General Knowledge and Awareness section. 1 question in the Mathematics section was discovered to be completely out of the syllabus. The test screen was unable to capture the answers marked by the students and the computer screen was blurring out. CLAT, 2018 CLAT, 2018 was organized by National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi. Many candidates asked for re-examination and many petitions were filed this year. Following were the controversies surrounding CLAT 2018: Almost 14 exam centres faced technical problems due to the shut down of a few computers which caused anxiety among the candidates. In a few exam centres, the test began with clear screens and the clock had started, and to overcome this tough situation, the students were asked to restart their computers to continue the test. The system continued to hang even in the middle of the test. A few exam centres faced the problem of power cuts during the test. Biometric Verifications were very slow. Infrastructural inadequacies were additionally a part of the issue as there was a miscommunication in regards to centre names or areas, misallocation of seats and absence of proper ventilation. In some places, pen and paper were not given as required and no preparation test was conducted as the examination centres were behind schedule. Few computer mouses were not working properly which resulted in skipping a few questions and not saving the answers. CLAT, 2020 In 2020, the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore announced that they would withdraw from the CLAT and conduct their own entrance examinations, the National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT). However, the Supreme Court of India struck down this and ordered the university to re-join CLAT. CLAT, 2021 In 2021, there were errors in the answer key. Some questions were wrong. The Consortium of National Law University received more than 1000 objections from the candidates who appeared in the CLAT 2021. The committee deleted one question i.e. Q.No 143 from CLAT UG paper and modified two answers of Q.No 86 and 145 in the CLAT UG answer key. Thus, the results were declared based on 149 marks instead of 150 marks. CLAT PG Papers: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qx2W-G5ozt_RlmDNfJtEXPPCWEa_MZ0b?usp=sharing CLAT UG Papers: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tMutyQog32QpOui24z2eT1S_eQNCMikQ?usp=sharing

Gaurav

Jul 15, 2021

Top Law Firms in India

Here is a list of the top law firms in India (top 20) that every law graduate must know. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas: This is one of the most famous law firms in India. It was established in the year 2015. The firm has offices in many top cities in India, namely, New Delhi, Mumbai, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Chennai, Ahmedabad and Kolkata. It has more than 684 lawyers with 145 partners. The firms deal with a variety of issues in the field of General Corporate, Banking, Finance, Competition Law, Dispute Resolution, Tax, Intellectual Property. The firm was ranked as the Best Law Firm of the Year at the Legal Era Awards in 2021. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas: Started in the year 2015, it is one of the largest law firms in India. The firm has its offices in cities like - Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Chennai. It has around 750 lawyers. The practise area of the firm include Capital Market, Litigation, Arbitration, Banking, Finance, Real Estate, Taxation, Merger & Acquisitions, Competition, etc. This firm have been awarded many notable awards like – In-House Community Firm of the Year 2021, The Legal Era Awards, 2020-2021, Legal 500 Asia Pacific Rankings 2021, etc. AZB & Partners: AZB is a corporate law firm in India that was formed in the year 2004. The firm has spread its operation to several cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune. The major practice area of the firm includes M&A, Banking & Finance, Litigation, Intellectual Property, Taxation, Capital Markets, etc. It has more than 400 skilled lawyers who are working as a team to provide innovative solutions to their clients. AZB & Partners has been identified as India National Law Firm of the Year 2021 by the Chambers Asia Pacific Award. Khaitan & Co: Khaitan & Co. is one of the foremost law firms in India founded in the year 1911. It has offices in cities like - Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Noida. It is one of the oldest law firms in India which majorly deals in the sector like - Banking and Finance, Capital Markets, Corporate/Commercial, Dispute Resolution, Funds, Intellectual Property, Infrastructure, Energy & Natural Resources, Labor & Employment laws, Private Equity, Real Estate, Taxation (Direct and Indirect Tax) Technology, Media and Telecommunication. J Sagar Associates: J Sagar is a top national law firm in India with over 320 lawyers including 110 professionals operating out of 7 offices located in Ahmedabad, Delhi, Gurgaon, Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad. The Firm's practise areas include: General Corporate Commercial, Projects, Mergers & Acquisitions and Private Equity, Banking & Finance, Capital Markets & Securities, Regulatory & Policy, Taxation and Dispute Resolution. This firm has been ranked as one of the top law firms in the Venture Intelligence M&A League Table (Jan-Dec 2020). L & L Partners: L & L Partners, earlier known as Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, was founded in the year 1990. It has its core workplaces in four major cities - New Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bangalore. The firm provides solutions for several issues like Corporate, Commercial, Banking, Finance, Litigation, Intellectual Property, Real Estate, Private Equity, Ventures, Media, Technology, etc. It has over 80 partners and 300 qualified lawyers. Trilegal: Trilegal is one of the renowned firms in India which has 4 offices in the cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad. The firm provides services in the areas of Corporate, Mergers and Acquisitions, Financial Services, TMT, Energy and Infrastructure, Disputes, Competition, Capital Markets, Employment, Real Estate and Tax. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan: It is a full-service law firm in India established in 1985. This firm has over 400+ experienced lawyers who are providing solutions in the areas such as corporate & commercial laws, dispute resolution, taxation and intellectual property. The firm has offices in 14 cities in India and has been conferred with many popular awards like - Legal Era Awards, Asian Legal Business Awards, Legal 500 Asia Pacific Awards, etc. Nishith Desai Associates: Nishith Desai Associates (NDA) is a research-based international law firm with offices in Mumbai, Palo Alto (Silicon Valley), Bangalore, Singapore, New Delhi, Munich, and New York. Its core practise area is International Tax, International Tax Litigation, Competition Law, Human Resources Law (Employment and Labour), International Dispute Resolution and Investigations Practice, Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity Investment, Joint Ventures, Capital Markets, Private Client, Fund Formation, Technology Law, Intellectual Property. It has been ranked as the Most Innovative Indian Law Firm in the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Talwar Thakore & Associates: It is one of the reputed law firms in Mumbai and New Delhi. It was introduced in the year 2007 and specializes in the field of Capital Markets, Mergers & Acquisitions, Projects, Finance, Trade, etc. Since its inception, the firm has been providing an impressive track record working with international companies. Platinum Partners: It is an Indian law firm established in 2008. It has offices in Bengaluru, New Delhi and Mumbai. The firm has expertise in M & A, Private Equity, Venture Capital, Fund Formation, Projects & Infrastructure, Securities Law, Employment Law, etc. Platinum Partners has been ranked as the Top Law firm in India by RSG Consulting. Anand & Anand: Anand & Anand is an Indian law firm established in 1923 to provide end-to-end legal solutions covering all cross-sections of Intellectual Property and allied areas. It has been ranked under the category "Chambers and Partners Asia Pacific" in 2021 and known as the top IP Law Firms in Asia. The firm runs its offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Noida and has around 100 qualified attorneys and more than 28 partners. The practice area consists of IP including copyrights, trademarks, patents, designs, litigation, etc. Desai & Diwanji: Desai & Diwanji is one of India’s leading law firms located in Mumbai and New Delhi. The firm is known for its specializations in Corporate, M&A, Projects, Private Equity, Capital Markets, Litigation, etc. Economic Laws Practice: Economic Laws Practice (ELP) is a foremost full-service Indian law firm established in the year 2001 by an eminent group of lawyers from miscellaneous fields. It has offices in Mumbai, Ahmadabad, Pune, Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore and has a team of 200+ qualified professionals. Some of the areas of expertise include Corporate, Commercial, Data Protection, Banking, Finance, Competition Law, Policy, Litigation, Arbitration, Real Estate, etc. This firm has been ranked as the Top Law Firm in Forbes India’s Legal Power List. Wadia Ghandy & Co: It is one of the oldest law firms in India which was set up in 1883. It has its offices in Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Delhi. Its main area of expertise includes General Practice, Banking & Finance, Private Equity & Investments, Mergers & Acquisitions, Real Estate, Aviation, Media, Intellectual Property, Foreign Investment & Exchange Control, Insurance, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Capital Markets & Securities, Infrastructure, Insurance, General Corporate and Anti-Trust Laws. Phoenix Legal: Phoenix Legal is one of the leading Indian law firms founded in 2008. It has two offices, one in Delhi and another in Mumbai. This firm focuses on Banking and Finance, Corporate Commercial, Dispute Resolution, Infrastructure, Mining, Energy, Oil and Gas, Foreign Investment and Exchange Control, Insurance, Joint Ventures/M&A, Private Equity and Funds, Real Estate. It has a group of 11 Partners and 75 well-experienced lawyers. It is recognised as a Tier 2 law firm in the recent Asian Legal Business (ALB) M&A Rankings 2020. Vaish Associates: Vaish Associates is one of the largest direct tax firms in India with other main practice areas such as Corporate Practice, Banking, Finance, Private Equity, Real Estate, Competiton, IPR, Information Technology, Entertainment Law, Employment Law, Labour Law. This firm was formed in the year 1971 and has offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru. The firm has received many notorious awards from India Business Law Journal, Asia Law Profiles. DSK Legal: DSK Legal is one of the top full-service law firms in India with over 140 lawyers and 21 partners across offices in Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru and Pune. This firm was started in 2001 and has been ranked 7th among the top law firms in India. Some of the practices areas for these firms are Antitrust & Competition, Art Law, Banking & Finance, Corporate, Commercial and M&A, IT & Intellectual Property, Employment, Litigation & Arbitration. HSA Advocates: This firm started its journey in 2003 with its offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Kolkata. It has grown rapidly on the strength of its expertise to a multi-disciplinary team with over 150 lawyers, including 30+ partners. This firm has been ranked as a Tier 1 law firm for Projects & Energy practice by Legal 500. The areas of expertise include Energy & Infrastructure, Banking & Finance, Restructuring & Insolvency, Corporate & Commercial, Regulatory & Policy, Defence & Aerospace, Dispute Resolution, Environment Health & Safety, Real Estate, Technology Media & Telecommunications, Taxation, and Investigations. Kochhar & Co: Kochhar & Co. is one of India's biggest corporate law firms which has been ranked as the Top-Tier Firm in the areas of Corporate, Commercial, M&A, Private Equity, Foreign Investment, Banking and Finance, Tax, Infrastructure, Energy, IT, Telecoms, Real Estate, Litigation, Labor & Employment, IP, etc. It has its offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Gurgaon and Hyderabad in India and four abroad offices in Dubai, Singapore, Chicago, Jeddah. It has an eminent team of 200 plus lawyers. If you think there is a law firm that should have made it to the list here, let us know.

Superadmin

Jul 08, 2021

A Short Biography of Kiren Rijiju

Kiren Rijiju is an inspirational lawyer and famous politician hailing from the state of Arunachal Pradesh. He was born on November 19, 1971, in Nakhu, a medium-size village situated in the Nafra circle of West Kameng district of Arunachal Pradesh. He is the son of Sri Rinchin Kharu and Shrimati Chirai Rijiju. Kiren’s Father, Sri Rinchin Kharu was the first pro-term speaker of Arunachal Pradesh to give oath to the members of the first state assembly. Kiren Rijiju gained good education at the Hansraj College, University of Delhi and also qualified with a law degree from Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. He actively took part as a social worker and students leader in his school time. As a youngster, he participated in the Festival of India in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the year 1987. Rijiju has represented India in various social as well as cultural programmes held in numerous countries. He has also travelled to many developed countries in the world as a member of many parliamentary delegations. Rijju was well known as the best athlete in his school and college days and has participated in many national games like badminton, football, etc. He has written various articles in newspapers and magazines on social, cultural and political issues. Kiren Rijiju is recognized as the face of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in North East India. At the age of 29, he served as a Member of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission starting from 2000 to 2005 year. He is regarded as one of the most iconic political leader in the state of Arunachal Pradesh and in North East India. In the general election of the 2014 year, Kiren Rijiju was elected as a Member of Parliament in the 16th Lok Sabha, representing the Arunachal West Lok Sabha Constituency. He became the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Youth Affairs and Sports and Minister of State for Minority Affairs in May 2019. On July 7, 2021, Kiren Rijiju was promoted as a Minister of Law and Justice in an expansion of the Union Cabinet and Union Council of Ministers.

Gaurav

Jul 01, 2021

Bar Enrolment in States – Procedure and other details, along with respective State Bar Council websites

Any applicant who has finished his/her law graduation (3-year LLB programme or 5-year integrated LLB programme) from the academic year 2009-10 ahead, needs to qualify for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) certification exam in order to practice in a court of law in India. Presently, before appearing in the AIBE exam, an aspirant must be registered (or enrolled) as an advocate with a State Bar Council. As a part of the state bar council enrolment process, the candidate has to go to their individual Bar Council web portal and get registered online; however, if the online registration option isn’t accessible, then the applicant needs to visit the council premises face to face, get the registration form upon payment of a fee, appropriately fill and submit it. Eligibility conditions for clearance of Enrolment Certificate Nationality: The aspirant must be an Indian citizen. Educational requirement: He/she must have passed a law degree (either a 3-year LLB programme or a 5-year integrated LLB programme). Age limit: There is no upper age limit for State Bar Council registration/enrolment. Web Portal Links to State Bar Councils State Bar Councils Website Bar Council of Delhi Visit here Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh Visit here Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim Visit here Bar Council of Bihar Visit here Bar Council of Chhattisgarh Visit here Bar Council of Gujarat Visit here Bar Council Of Himachal Pradesh Applicants need to visit the council premises in person for registration. Enrolment forms can be collected between 10 am - 1 pm on all working days. Address: High Court Complex, Ravenswood, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171001 Jharkhand State Bar Council Visit here Bar Council of Karnataka Visit here Bar Council Of Kerala Visit here Bar Council Of Madhya Pradesh Visit here Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa Visit here Odisha State Bar Council Visit here Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana Visit here Bar Council of Rajasthan Visit here Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Visit here Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Visit here Bar Council Of Uttarakhand Visit here Bar Council Of West Bengal Visit here Bar Council of Tripura The applicant may visit the council premises in person and get and submit the registration form. Address: High Court Complex New Capital Complex, Lichubagan, Agartala, Tripura – 799010 Tel: 97741-35198, 97745-14069 Bar Council of Manipur Visit here High Court of Meghalaya Registration forms can be acquired from the Bar Council office. Address: High Court of Meghalaya MG Road, Shillong-793001 Meghalaya Fax: 0364-2500064 How to get registered and joined with state bar councils for appearing in All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) 2022? Important Information: If the applicant is using online registration or enrolment procedure, then they have to be enrolled first: The aspirants can follow the instruction which is mentioned below in the step to get registered themselves with state bar councils for appearing in AIBE. Step 1: Online registration (or sign up): In the enrolment/registration form, the candidates are required to enter their full name, gender, date of birth, contact no, email, security code shown on the screen. On positive sign up, a new advocate account will be created. Step 2: The applicant may also have to select and confirm a new password for the account created or formed on the official website of the state bar council. Step 3: Log in to access the enrolment form: On fruitful signup, details of login credentials will be sent to the registered email id. Step 4: Fill the enrolment (or registration) form: Now, the aspirant has to fill up in personal, contact number, and educational details. Additionally, employment details also have to be provided. Step 5: Upload of essential documents: Next, the candidate has to upload the important documents like – professional photograph and signature, and other documents as per the format stated (please refer to the table below to check the tentative document agenda). Step 6: Pay the state bar council registration fee: In the second to last step, pay the enrolment fee. Step 7: Submit the form: Before submitting the form, check that the application form is complete in all respects or not. Important Document to be uploaded Secondary School Certificate (SSC) or its equivalent certificate Degree or its equivalent certificate Intermediate or its equivalent Law Certificate Other Qualification Certificates Caste certificate for Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates GAP Affidavit, if valid If a candidate is involved in criminal or illegal cases, then they have to provide the details in Affidavit format If left service, acceptance of resignation letter from the department/branch If a left business, original partnership deed/dissolution deed (as declared on Delhi Bar Council website) Residence proof 4 colour photographs in a black coat, white shirt & black tie Attendance certificate - Note: Applicants having more than 5 years of educational gap in studies from SSC onwards to date, may be required to upload GAP Affidavit. State Bar Council Enrollment fee Fee Component Fee Amount The registration fee to be paid to respective State Bar Councils Rs. 600 Fee towards Bar Council of India (BCI) Rs. 150 Note: The fee payments have to be made using separate demand drafts. Enrolment of Advocates Eligible persons are admitted as advocates on the rolls of the State Bar Councils. The Advocates Act, 1961 empowers State Bar Councils to frame their own rules regarding enrolment of advocates. Contact details for individual Councils can be found here. The Council’s Enrolment Committee may scrutinise a candidate’s application. Those admitted as advocates by any State Bar Council are eligible for a Certificate of Enrolment. For the official information, click here.

Gaurav

Jun 04, 2021

List of Judges of the Supreme Court of India

This is a record of judges of the Supreme Court of India, the Apex court in India. The record is arranged by seniority. There are 27 judges as of today (inclusive of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India) and the most extreme conceivable strength is 34. According to the Constitution of India, judges of the Supreme Court resign at age of 65. Record of Judges ordered by Seniority S.No Images Name Qualification Date of Appointment Date of Retirement Parent High Court 1 N. V. Ramana (Chief Justice of India) B.Sc, LLB 17 February 2014 26 August 2022 Andhra Pradesh 2 Uday U. Lalit LL.B. 13 August 2014 8 November 2022 Bar Council 3 Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar LL.B. 13 May 2016 29 July 2022 Bombay 4 Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud BA, LLB & LLM, SJD 13 May 2016 10 November 2024 Bombay 5 L. Nageswara Rao LL.B. 13 May 2016 7 June 2022 Bar Council 6 Sanjay Kishan Kaul Economics (Hons), LL.B. 17 February 2017 25 December 2023 Delhi 7 S. Abdul Nazeer B.Com, LL.B. 17 February 2017 4 January 2023 Karnataka 8 Indira Banerjee B.A LL.B.(Hons.) 7 August 2018 23 September 2022 Calcutta 9 Vineet Saran LL.B. 7 August 2018 10 May 2022 Allahabad 10 K. M. Joseph LL.B. 7 August 2018 16 June 2023 Kerala 11 Hemant Gupta LL.B. 2 November 2018 16 October 2022 Punjab and Haryana 12 Ramayyagari Subhash Reddy B.Sc., LL.B. 2 November 2018 4 January 2022 Telangana 13 Mukesh Shah B.Sc., LL.B. 2 November 2018 15 May 2023 Gujarat 14 Ajay Rastogi B.Com., LL.B. 2 November 2018 17 June 2023 Rajasthan 15 Dinesh Maheshwari B.Sc. (Hons), LL.B. 18 January 2019 14 May 2023 Rajasthan 16 Sanjiv Khanna LL.B. 18 January 2019 13 May 2025 Delhi 17 Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai LL.B. 24 May 2019 23 November 2025 Bombay 18 Surya Kant LL.B., LL.M. 24 May 2019 9 February 2027 Punjab and Haryana 19 Aniruddha Bose B.Com., LL.B. 24 May 2019 10 April 2024 Calcutta 20 A. S. Bopanna LL.B. 24 May 2019 19 May 2024 Karnataka 21 Krishna Murari LL.B. 23 September 2019 8 July 2023 Allahabad 22 Shripathi Ravindra Bhat LL.B. 23 September 2019 20 October 2023 Delhi 23 V. Ramasubramanian LL.B. 23 September 2019 29 June 2023 Madras 24 Hrishikesh Roy LL.B. 23 September 2019 31 January 2025 Gauhati 25 Abhay Shreeniwas Oka LL. M. 31 August 2021 24 May 2025 Bombay 26 Vikram Nath LL.B. 31 August 2021 23 September 2027 Allahabad 27 Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari LL.B. & LL. M. 31 August 2021 28 June 2026 Madhya Pradesh 28 Hima Kohli LL.B. 31 August 2021 1 September 2024 Delhi 29 B. V. Nagarathna LL.B. 31 August 2021 29 October 2027 Karnataka 30 C. T. Ravikumar LL.B. 31 August 2021 5 January 2025 Kerala 31 M. M. Sundresh LL.B. 31 August 2021 20 July 2027 Madras 32 Bela Madhurya Trivedi LL.B. 31 August 2021 9 June 2025 Gujarat 33 P. S. Narasimha B.Com, LL.B. 31 August 2021 2 May 2028 Bar Council

Gaurav

Apr 15, 2021

Abolition of Appellate Boards/Tribunals in India - An Appraisal

The Government issued an ordinance on April 4, 2021, to dismantle five appellate courts, including the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was established in 2003 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and was exercising original and appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. It handled intellectual property disputes between top companies in India in various sectors in the technology, engineering, and pharmaceutical sectors. The Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 abolished IPAB among other courts. At present, the High Court is expected to effectively handle patent, trademark and geographical indication disputes, and copyright issues will be heard in the best commercial courts in India. Through the decree, the government plans to dismantle these appeal courts in order to streamline them. Since then, there has been a tiff between professionals who think this move could dismantle the pendency of the cases, even further. We reached out to a few accomplished practitioners who were asked whether the Ordinance was justified, in the first place. Their insights have been helpful in understanding the repercussions of this Ordinance. Aakash Raman Sinha, Associate, Singhania & Co., Bangalore, was asked whether he thought the Ordinance was justified or not. He opines, “The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 brings about two major changes. One is with respect to abolition of five Appellate Tribunal and grant of appellate powers to the High Court in that regard. The other concealed change is with respect to Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 from where the Centre gets its powers to make Rules relating to Tribunals and its members. As far as the move to abolish the Appellate Tribunals are concerned, it cuts both ways. Prima facie it appears as a move which can increase the burden on Judiciary, and shift High Court’s precious time on matters such as examining the validity of removal of a particular scene/clip from a film. However, it has its own benefits. Firstly, it is notable that most of the Tribunals which are included within the ambit of the Ordinance, were not functioning properly. Most of the members appointed as a “technical member” lacked the expertise, quite ironically. Secondly, the resolution of disputes in these Tribunals, have not been as speedy as envisaged. Thirdly, most of these Tribunals led to reduced access to Justice. Most of them are only located in a couple of cities, increasing the litigation cost and catering mostly only to the lawyers present in those cities. Further, this move ensures that one layer in accessing Justice as such is removed enabling people to access it faster and at a reduced cost. Lastly and most importantly, it bolsters Judicial Independence. As regards the powers to make Rules regarding Tribunals and its members is considered, a bare perusal of the Ordinance will denote that it is an old wine in a new bottle, and a blatant disregard to the directions of the Supreme Court to maintain judicial dominance in appointments”. Aakash’s take on the impact in employment through this Ordinance - “When viewed specifically from an employment perspective, the timing of the Ordinance could not have been worse. The world is reeling from a pandemic, and it is the most inappropriate time to cut jobs and snatch livelihood of those who are working in these Tribunals. Apart from retired Judges or senior bureaucrats who are appointed as Presiding Officers, there are various other personnel who constitute the Registry or the back-office of these Tribunals for whom this measure spells absolute disaster. Even if a separate wing for these specialised matters is created in the High Courts, the requirement of personnel will not be as high as required to ensure smooth functioning of a separate Tribunal as such.” Whether there could be an alternative to the abolition of appellate courts - “The alternative approach should have been to conduct a “Judicial Impact Assessment” as advocated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roger Mathew vs. South Indian Bank & Anr., prior to abolishing the said Tribunals so as to collate the viewpoint of all the interested parties and to arrive at a decision that neither increases the burden on Judiciary nor reduces the employment of the people at large while maintaining Judicial Independence. While rationalisation of Tribunals in the long run is justified, as of today, it would have been better if the Ordinance merely provided for appointments to the Tribunals, larger tenure to minimize executive interference and maintained Judicial dominance in those appointments.” This surely opens a door of debate, as to whether the Ordinance is just and fair in all terms. Mukund P. Unny, practicing Advocate at the Supreme Court of India “The decision of the Central Government to amend the law regarding Tribunals, to delete the Appellate Boards from the system and to give the powers to the High Courts and Commercial Courts, is commendable. It has been a publicly-known fact that the Appellate Boards under various statutes were not functioning in full capacity, much less efficiently. Although Appellate Boards were formed with the intent that an expert body should decide the appeals, we have seen instances where these Boards passed orders which were prima facie perverse. Settled legal principles were often neglected by the “expert members” of the Tribunals. It is important to note that a High Court or a Civil Courts in India are no less a forum that lacks expertise. It is also important that most these Boards or Tribunals were understaffed. The new decision would help in ensuring that such inadequacies are sorted out for good. However, there is also a concern regarding the mounting arrears in various Biggest high court in India. Many Intellectual Property cases, that are to be decided quickly in the interest of business, may get delayed due to the clogs in the system. Therefore, it is necessary that these disputes are decided by the High Court or Commercial Courts within a time-frame. For example, Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 ensured that the arbitration proceedings are concluded within a year. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has also given impetus to timely disposal of commercial cases. In my opinion, the Government ought to have stated that these cases, that are now relegated to High Courts and Commercial Courts, are disposed of within a specified timeline so that litigants do not have to wait for years.” Sumeet Sirohi, IPR attorney, R.K Dewan & Co, Bangalore who has dealt with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), was asked about this Ordinance and how it impacted the employment. He opines, “Since I’ve only dealt with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, my opinion will be limited to the effect and consequences the Ordinance has on that front. The IPAB was working with a considerable number of latches with regard to the quorum of the bench in itself, and with a lot of procedural latches with regard to the hearing dates, filing and service of the documents and so on. The ordinance is justified to the extent that it abolishes the IPAB, but not in substituting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers to the High Court and the Commercial Court. Clearly, the judiciary has already been overburdened with cases pending for decades altogether, and this Ordinance will only further over-burden the judiciary. In a way, the entire motive of speedy adjudication of appeals is set ablaze by shifting the adjudication body to an already overburdened authority like the High Courts and the Commercial Courts. I had happened to contact the IPAB officials to understand further procedural course of actions, and the melancholy and the utter shock that the employees were in could be easily felt through their voices. The Ordinance will definitely impact the employees of the respective Tribunals, and I hope the Parliament takes that into consideration when the Ordinance is tabled in front of them for discussions and amendments. Ideally, the Tribunals were the specific and exclusive bodies to hear the appeals from the respective statutes. A similar arrangement of setting up new quasi-judicial bodies with improvements (given that there were numerous feedbacks on fighting the latches available) could have been resorted to. Nonetheless, the IPAB had been functioning at a tortoise’s pace, and slow and steady does not work for the long pending cases before them. However, as stated, I reiterate that shifting the burden to the High Courts and the Commercial courts is not the smartest move.” Ritesh Kumar, an Advocate-on-record at the Supreme Court of India and Partner at KRN Law Firm, has been practicing for over 18 years. He opines that the Ordinance was just and meaningful. He states - “Abolition of few of the tribunals seems to be a well-meaning step taken in the directions of rationalising and reforming the tribunal system. Some of these tribunals appear to have become obsolete and their abolition would not make much of a difference. Overall, the abolition is in line with the demands of lawyers, primarily practicing in the High Courts, and it is likely to benefit them. It is beneficial for the clients too, inasmuch as, adjudication would now become centralized. We should also not forget that High Courts are not only fiercely independent but also much better equipped, infrastructure wise, than these tribunals. Overall, I do not see any reason to complain. The lawyers and top law firms in India practising in these tribunals are familiar with and are well equipped to appear and argue before the High Courts as well, so if I think from the employment front, there wouldn’t be much of an impact on it. Some of the High Courts also have commercial courts. Therefore, lawyers specialised in these tribunals would be least bothered from this change in forum, as long as they have the clients and cases! Having seen the system up close, I don’t think there could be any other alternative than that of this Ordinance. Either, you can have the tribunals or you can’t. However, I would definitely say that this is a bold decision of the Govt. At the same time, I am sure the Govt would be thinking of appointing more judges to deal with an increasing number of cases and to adjudicate them swiftly and without any delay.” Resentment of this Ordinance by the film fraternity While legal practitioners have their reasons to support or criticise the Ordinance, the film industry has not welcomed this Ordinance as it goes on to abolish the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). Located at New Delhi, this tribunal was often resorted to, by filmmakers whose films required edits as per the orders of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). In the past, the filmmakers have already been at war with the CBFC for having suggested edits that were not positively accepted by producers and directors. They often approached the FCAT in the hope to overturn CBFC’s decision, and more often than not, the appellate tribunal was deemed a success by these aggrieved filmmakers. With the Ordinance stating the abolition of FCAT, Filmmaker, Hansal Mehta, the best filmmakers in India took to twitter where he asked whether the high courts had a lot of time in their hands to address film certification grievances, and how many film producers would actually have the means to approach the court. Filmmaker, Vishal Bharadwaj also took to twitter and tweeted that the abolition of FCAT was a sad day for the cinema. Apar Gupta, a lawyer and Executive Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation tweeted that the abolition of FCAT was likely to increase further delay, costs and indeterminacy for filmmakers. His tweet further states that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court would be an inadequate basis to remedy it. He states that while in principle there were strong arguments for the abolition of the tribunals, but - till film certification is mandatory, the FCAT was largely an imperfect but a functional body and it provided relief in a large number of cases. With the courts already struggling to clear backlogs and pendency of cases along with more cases being filed everyday, the question of how this Ordninance will affect high courts, is something we are yet to find out. Until then, we continue to hope for a system that enables speedier dispensation of justice.

Bhavya Bhatt

Jan 10, 2021

New LL.M Rules by BCI - What does the legal fraternity think?

A Master of Laws (LL.M, Legum Magister) is considered an advanced, post-graduate academic degree. It is usually pursued by those who hold an undergraduate degree in law or in subjects related to the LLM being applied for. While the LL.B (Legum Bachelors or Bachelor's of Law) is enough for an individual to practice law in India, many people pursue LL.M degrees, for various reasons, such as, to develop a career in academia or research, or to gain further specialized knowledge in a given area of law, etc. Traditionally, any master’s program in India takes around two years to complete. Even LL.M, before 2013, had courses that went on for two years, divided into four semesters. However, in January 2013, the UGC introduced LL.M courses of one-year duration, just like in many other countries such as the UK and the USA. While it was a relief for students to have saved one year while studying LL.M, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has decided to change this system going forward. What does the BCI say? The new Bar Council of India Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical, and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 state that BCI, as a body now shall regulate Post Graduate and Other Higher Education in Law, since legal education has been excluded from being regulated by the National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC) and the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI), after the incoming of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020. It states that on the advice of the Legal Education Committee (LEC), the BCI shall appoint a Special Sub-Committee for implementing these Regulations under the BCI and the LEC’s overall control. There are a few crucial points about LL.M in these Rules. They are : Chapter II states that the Entry Level Qualification for LL.M has to be either three-year or the five-year LL.B. BCI has made it clear that the post-graduate course in law, leading to a master’s degree (LL.M), has to be of two years’ duration spreading over four semesters. This further establishes that the LL.M one year, which was introduced in 2013 (as per the UGC notification), will remain operative only for the current academic year. LL.M course is only restricted to law graduates. Any other master's degree specializing in a particular area of law where the pre-requisite is not an undergraduate in law will not be considered an LL.M. BCI has brought forward the concept of a Post Graduate Common Entrance Test in Law (PGCETL) and has stated that it may conduct this test for admission in masters degree course in law in all universities. Once it gets implemented, students shall be admitted based on the merit list subject to rules of classification and reservation in the state concerned. LL.M degree obtained from any foreign university is not equivalent to Indian LL.M degree. However, one year LL.M degree obtained after an equivalent LL.B degree from any ‘highly accredited’ Foreign University may entitle the person concerned to be appointed as a visiting professor in an Indian University for at least 1 year. When this 1 year of teaching experience as a visiting professor is completed, the Foreign University LL.M Degree may be considered equivalent. What do legal professionals think? We decided to ask a few legal professionals about their opinions on these new LL.M Rules by the BCI, and here is what they have to say – Abhinav Barthwal, present (1yr) LL.M candidate – University of Buckingham, one amongst the oldest private universities in England "The BCI is well empowered to introduce the changes as it is now the sole regulator of legal education at all levels after the NEP 2020. However, these powers should have been exercised after due consultation with the authorities and students. This notification, which prima facie appears to be drafted in haste, has completely perplexed the students and academicians alike. This decision does not fall in line with the Indian education sector's aspiration to be on par with globally reputed educational regimes that offer high-quality education within a year. Does prolonging the duration guarantee an enhancement in the quality of education imparted? What it is surely going to do is to dissuade law students from pursuing the LLM. Personally, I would not have opted for a degree of Master’s in Law had the duration been two years. But luckily, it was only one year in my case. The BCI should reconsider and take this decision back in light of its practical implications. If this is not done, the BCI should alleviate the fears of LL.M aspirants by clarifying how the increased duration of the course is going to help them secure a place of themselves in this highly competitive market and these uncertain times." Saransh Chaturvedi, present (2yr) LL.M Candidate – Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, one of the top premier institutes in India "I feel that LL.M is not just a degree for academia but also for others who want to strengthen their understanding of subjects. Now there are two angles from which I see these Rules about LLM. The first one is from Employment, and the second is research. From the employment perspective, I do not welcome this move. The reason being I, an LL.M graduate who prefers not to go into academia, will also stand on the same level as that of a 5-year LLB grad in a company. We'll be getting paid on similar lines, so I don't see the need for a 2-year LL.M just for me to get a job because not everyone will go into academia. From the research point, I can understand why BCI must have thought about imposing 2-year LL.M. The thing is, when you do a 2-year LL.M, you have an entire last two semesters to work on your thesis. It means more work around the research. A 2-year LL.M will surely help an individual have better research skills that a 1-year LL.M student might not have, owing to the dearth of time. But do I support Rule 6[1], if you may think? No. Scrapping off is not certainly an option because I think one should at least get a say in what they want to study. I had the option between 1- year and 2-year LL.M because I wanted to strengthen my research, and I chose the latter, but I feel BCI shouldn't take this privilege away from students." Kingshuk Halder, an Ex-Deloitte and a fresher (1 year) LL.M graduate in Maritime Laws from Gujarat Maritime University, one of the top maritime colleges in India. "I have studied Maritime Laws in my Master's, which was only for 1 year. I have to say that the things I learned here in just a span of 1 year have changed me as a professional. I don't see the point of increasing two more semesters when it is possible for us to learn everything concisely in just two semesters. For those who think you need to spend more time in a course like LL.M, that's not true. Maritime Laws doesn't have a 2-year master's course yet, and I feel it's unnecessary. If I had the chance of choosing the 2-year LL.M or 1-year LL.M in maritime laws, I'd still go for one despite the availability, because after studying Law for five years, I think I'd like to save some time while I pursued my Master's. When the whole of the western world is progressing, I don't see the point of 4-semester, 2-year LL.M because it doesn't make sense at this point." Ansh Singh Luthra holds an LL.M from the University of Cambridge, one of the top public universities in Cambridge presently an advocate at the High Court of Delhi. "I think that a lot of thought needs to go into these rules. For instance, why would an advocate want to incorporate his credit points on his business card (referring to Rule 17 where BCI may run a Continuing Education). My client would focus on whether I can get him relief or not; he wouldn't care much about my credit points. I do welcome the thought behind continuing legal education, but the rules must be re-worked to make them practical. Getting to the LL.M rules, right now, there is no date from when 1-year LL.M would be scrapped. However, I don't welcome the move to change the LLM program's duration from one to two years. There is no statistical or empirical analysis on the basis of which they've introduced this new 2- year LLM program. What is the practical benefit of this Rule? Will the students get better placements on graduation? Will they have a higher intellect if they study for two years instead of one? It is still very ambiguous and unstructured. It's essential that stakeholders are consulted and the rules re-worked to make them more practical and implementable. Only time will tell us how these rules pan out." Chhaya Bharadwaj holds an LL.M in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School and is currently a Lecturer at Jindal Global Law School. "When I read the notification, I thought the objective of this was to make the quality of education better, but I don't see how increasing the number of semesters would improve the quality of education. Because if we go by that logic, then a 5-year LL.B degree would hold a superior position than that of a 3-year LL.B, but that is also not the case. Secondly, during the Pandemic, Universities and regulators worldwide are working towards making education accessible and more effortless. This regulation may make it difficult for universities and students to transition from two semesters to four semesters. Thirdly, given LL.M. is the first degree to a research/academic career, the regulators could build a curriculum and its implementation to develop research and teaching skills within that one year. The regulation seems to discriminate amongst the foreign 1- year LLM degree holders and Indian 2-year LLM degree holders. If this regulation's impact is the acceptance of both degrees, it might make more sense to allow 1- year LL.M. in India and add another year of teaching as mandatory." Jayant Bhatt holds an LL.M from NUS, Singapore, and an LL.M from NYU School of Law, presently a practicing advocate in Delhi. "There has to be some data collection which has influenced BCI's decision to scrap the 1-year LL.M, but to my knowledge, nothing of that sort is available on the public domain, so I don't understand why they need to go back to 2-year when 1-year LL.M was doing perfectly fine in the country. The cons over here would be an extreme financial burden on students, their parents to finance two more semesters, and in this Pandemic, it is a challenge. I also don't see how the extension of two more semesters will turn out on the students' job front. I am certain that no one can guarantee placement after two years because even 1-year LL.M graduates are seen struggling, so why this? Also, how is mandating two more semesters going to contribute to a student's intellect? We live in an age where we need to reduce time in academics and spend more time on practicality. I understand that this move might focus on a detailed and in-depth study of the discipline, and there is more likely to be a better student-teacher ratio, but wholly, taking away the 1-year LL.M is making no sense to me." Divya Swamy holds an LL.M in Competition Law and Market Regulations, from NLU, Delhi, and is presently pursuing her PhD from RMLNLU, Lucknow "I believe that the 1-year LL.M was a very smart step to take specially because in most foreign universities, Master’s is a 10 month degree. This way, there was a parity with the rest of the world. However, there are a bunch of other factors that need consideration especially since Masters degrees are meant for research and higher jurisprudential understanding. Firstly, I don’t think the 5+2 or 5+1 system in itself is the ideal way to proceed. The 2 year period for Masters is necessary to encourage good research but a total of Six years of education to pursue law is sufficient. The idea should be to avoid brain drain of bright legal minds. So maybe, if they’re looking for an overhaul, then a 4+2 would be more effective or else some modifications to ensure that the 5 year bachelors degree also incorporates good research. Personally, while pursuing a 1-year LL.M., I felt that the pressure to write a good dissertation while not compromising on the quality of my research and writing, was very high. So, while I do agree with the extension of 1-year LL.M but it makes sense if we look at the number of training years in an integrated manner, or else we might end up losing a lot of bright minds to the foreign markets. Secondly, I believe the BCI should give some time for the transition to happen, like around 3-4 years, so even colleges and universities can accordingly make changes in their curriculum. Keeping in view the pandemic and the fact that graduating batches are already coping with employment concerns, it is not the best time to bring about these rules." Abhijit Nair holds an LL.M from GNLU, Gandhinagar and is presently an Assistant Professor at Presidency University, one of the top-ranked universities in Bengaluru. He is also a PhD candidate at NLSIU, Bangalore. "As someone who did my LL.M a couple of years ago and who has been in legal research and academics for more than two years now, I am not surprised that this has happened. The 1-year LL.M was introduced to prevent brain drain and to prevent people from going abroad to pursue Master’s. Still, the thing is, people are any which way pursuing LL.M from abroad and looking for opportunities abroad after 1-year LL.M, so why compromise on the integrity of the research and the degree? The reason I am saying this is because you have around nine papers and one dissertation in an LL.M, and honestly, there is very little time to concentrate on your dissertation, something that the 2-year LL.M takes care of! I am glad that I got to pursue the 1-year LL.M, three years after I graduated. The LL.M enabled me to get into teaching very quickly. However, with M.Phil being taken down, LL.M now has become a stepping stone research degree. So now, the 2-year LL.M makes perfect sense because there is no intermediate research degree between your LL.M and Ph.D. Hence, the LL.M must form a foundation of the Ph.D., which can only be achieved by investing more time in Master’s. Come to think of it, every other Master's course in India is for two years, so a 2-year LL.M is not new! You are supposed to be an expert, you are supposed to specialize, and I think this is where this Rule falls into place." Summary These are the points we can take away from all the information at hand: 1. BCI has not produced any empirical or statistical data based on which these Rules are being introduced. 2. There is a mixed reaction to these changes, however, based only on the above opinions taken at random and from persons with varied career paths, majority seem not to be in favour of abolishing the 1-year LL.M programme.[2] 3. The fact that the pre-requisite degree to LL.M itself spans over 5 years (integrated course) or 6 years (non-integrated), is also something that has been raised as a fact to be considered, in determining the duration of law studies. CLAT PG Papers: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qx2W-G5ozt_RlmDNfJtEXPPCWEa_MZ0b?usp=sharing CLAT UG Papers: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tMutyQog32QpOui24z2eT1S_eQNCMikQ?usp=sharing [1] Rule 6: One year Master Degree to be abolished. A Master Degree Program in Law of one year duration introduced in India in 2013(as per notification) by the University Grants Commission shall remain operative and valid until the Academic Session in which these Regulations are notified and implemented but not thereafter at any University throughout the country. [2] We started a small poll on Linkedin, which seems to be tilting in the same direction. Follow the poll here.

Bhavya Bhatt

1 (current)

×

Home
About
Jobs
Events
Courses
Exams
Blog
Recruiter
Pricing

Applicant

Login
Register
Forgot Password

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

*

*

*

*

Password should contain one upper case,one lower case,one number and one special character with 8-30 characters.

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Advertiser

Login
Register
Forgot your password

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

*

*

*

*

Password should contain one upper case,one lower case,one number and one special character with 8-30 characters.

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

about
privacy
terms of use
careers
contact us
sitemap

© 2021 Botmatrix Services Private Limited. All Rights Reserved.