Five Bar Councils of North Eastern India Calls for the Distributions of Financial Assistances to the Lawyers

Must Read

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Follow us

Covid19 Pandemic is worsening all over the world. At the time of lockdown in India, the Bar Council of North Eastern India namely Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim have formulated a scheme to give financial aid to support the livelihood of the Lawyers.

Advocates are facing a pitiable condition without having any source of income from the day lockdown started. At present, an amount up to Rs. 5,000/- would be given as a one-time measure of financial assistance from the Bar Council of these states.

This shall apply to the advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. This scheme shall come into effect after the approval by the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of these states created a fund by the name of the same for granting assistance to the Lawyers enrolled. It will be distributed through a nationalized bank.

Eligibility Criteria for The Financial Aid

  1. The applicant should be enrolled with the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim.
  2. The applicant should be in active practice.
  3. The applicant should have passed the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) if the AIBE is mandatory for him/her.
  4. The applicants should not be an income tax payee.
  5. The applicant should not have any other source of income.
  6. The applicant should not receive any pension or any kind of remittance from any company, bank, public sector undertaking, government, semi-government body/ authority/ institution/ university/ college etc.
  7. The applicant should not be dependent on his/ her parents(s)
  8. If the applicant is married his/ her spouse should not have any source of income, pension or any kind or any remittance.

The applicant should not be:

  1. Standing Counsel/ Government,
  2. Advocate
  3. Government Pleader
  4. Public Prosecutor
  5. Additional Public Prosecutor
  6. Assistant Public Prosecutor
  7. Retainer Advocate
  8. Counsel, etc.

of any company/ bank/ Public Sector Undertaking / Government/ semi–Government/ body/ authority/ institution/ university/ college,  etc. or a Notary.

The applicants who have not received any sort of assistance/ aid/ benefit from any Bar Association due to the Covid19 pandemic shall get preference under this scheme.

The Advocates Act, 1961 enjoins upon the Bar Councils, including the State Bar Councils constituted under Section 3 of the Act, to act for the welfare of and in the interest of advocates. Section 6(1)(d) of the said Act manifests the safeguarding of the rights, privileges and interests of advocates on its role as one of the functions of a State Bar Council. Section 6(2)(a) of the said Act lays down that a State Bar Council may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner to give financial assistance to organize welfare schemes for the indigent advocates.

The last date of receipt of applications under this scheme, either by email or in person or by Speed Post/ Registered Post/ courier is on 07 May 2020.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -