Subject to BCI Approval, Bar Council of Gujarat Permits Salaried Employment to Advocates Till December 2020

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The Bar Council of Gujarat has passed a resolution on June 21, 2020. The resolution permits needy advocates to engage in alternative employment. This is amid the COVID crisis. Hence, it exempts Section 35 of the Advocates’ Act, 1961.

Background 

The Government of India imposed lockdown starting March 22, 2020. In adherence to it, Gujarat High Court ordered hearings through video conferencing and suspended the physical functioning of the Court.

The circular included hearings only on urgent matters. This caused over 75000 advocates to struggle for livelihood. 

Moreover, Rule 47 to 52 of the Bar Council of India Rules poses certain restrictions. It prohibits practising advocates from any other form of salaried employment. Whereas, Section 35 of the Advocates’ Act, 1961 penalizes any such misconduct. 

Contents of the resolution

The Bar Council of Gujarat met on 21.06.2020 to end the miseries of the needy advocates. For the first time, a State Bar Council has taken such an initiative. 

The Council has decided to permit advocates from doing any other job/ business. The resolution will be in effect until December 31, 2020. Only the lawyers who fail economic sustainment may avail the benefit. Such lawyers must maintain the dignity of the legal profession while doing so.

Moreover, the Council has forgone the late fees of Rs. 250. The fees due from September’19 entail to the renewal of Advocates’ Welfare Fund. Inter alia, the Council, will be taking strict action against advocates who are bad-mouthing on social media. It has been reported that the writings are against the Bar Council and its elected members. The Council will issue the notice for deviation from professional ethics. 

Furthermore, the Council had sought directions from the Chief Justice’s Committee to resume the virtual functioning of Taluka and District Courts. It has been assured that the issue will be dealt with after surveying the districts for containment zones. 

Moreover, the Council has provided financial aid to about 11.000 advocates. It has disbursed an amount of Rs. 5.35 crores over the past three months.

However, the Bar Council of India has to approve the resolution before its implementation. 


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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -