Lawyers can have their websites - BCI to Supreme Court

The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it allowed lawyers to launch their own websites giving basic information about themselves to prospective clients.

A Bench consisting of Justices B.N. Agrawal, S.H. Kapadia and D.K. Jain is hearing a petition filed by advocate V.B. Joshi challenging Rule 36 of the BCI, which prohibits lawyers from advertising their services in any manner.

Appearing for the BCI, senior counsel Krishnamani said it had passed a resolution to amend Rule 36 for allowing lawyers to furnish information on the website — their names, addresses, telephone numbers, email ID, enrolment number, date of enrolment, the name of the State Bar Council where they originally enrolled, the name of State Bar Council on whose roll they are now, the name of the Bar Association of which they are members, and professional and academic qualifications and areas of practice.

Justice Agrawal told counsel that it would be better if the BCI allowed lawyers to furnish information about their experience and areas of specialisation also. Mr. Krishnamani said the BCI would accept this suggestion. The suggestion that the BCI and the State Bar Councils furnish on their websites particulars of lawyers enrolled in their States would also be considered.

Earlier, the BCI and the Centre opposed the petition, saying the legal profession was not a trade. It was always treated as a noble profession. “The rule against soliciting is the foundation of the legal system in India and the Indian society is quite different from western countries including the U.S. as our society cherishes different ethos, social values and ethical norms.”

The petitioner termed Rule 36 archaic. Over half-a-million lawyers, arbitrators and legal experts in India could offer their services to the world with the help of advertising, he said.

The Bench adjourned the hearing. Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam is appearing for the Centre.

Source : The Hindu - http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/30/stories/2008073061071400.htm

Bill to reduce pending court cases approved

New Delhi, April 24 The union cabinet Thursday approved introduction of a bill that will considerably reduce the number of cases pending in the subordinate judiciary.

The cabinet gave its approval for withdrawal of the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007, pending before Rajya Sabha, and introduction of the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2008, in the upper house in the light of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice and the Law Ministers & Law Secretaries & Registrar Generals of High Courts Conference, according to an official note.

The new bill will provide for a system of judiciary which will be less expensive, free from protracted procedural wrangles, quick and available at the grassroots level, accessible to the common people and render justice to them as enshrined in Article 39 A of the constitution, the note said.

Government may finally bankroll Right to Education Bill

New Delhi, Feb 23 The government might take on all the financial burden of the ambitious Rs.12.5 billion a year proposal to provide compulsory education to children all over the country after the states expressed their reluctance to bankroll the scheme.

The Right to Education Bill, 2005 has been on the backburner for two years but may finally be introduced in the budget session of parliament that kicks off next week, said officials in the ministry of human resource development (HRD).

This has already been communicated to the Planning Commission by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

The scheme had been riddled with problems from the start as states rejected the central government's proposal to share one-fourth of the funds for the purpose. Now, however, the union government is considering taking on 90 percent or maybe all the costs involved, officials said.

Concerned over the inordinate delay in getting the plan off the ground, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced last fortnight that the central government would be coming up with the Right to Education Bill "very soon". His announcement came a day after HRD Minister Arjun Singh met him seeking help to paper the differences, particularly after the states made it clear that they could not afford the money involved.

Over the last two years, Arjun Singh had been writing to state chief ministers hoping that they would come on board. But the response was uniform - fund the scheme. This, notwithstanding the central government's willingness to shell out 75 percent of the cost for implementing the scheme.

According to HRD ministry officials, the states had a problem with a particular clause in the bill that makes it mandatory for schools to pay the fees and other expenses of students from Classes 1 to 8. This, officials said, was because under the draft bill all out-of-school children between the ages of six and 14 (including disabled children) would have to be in school and state governments would have to pay for their education.

The central government has earmarked a whopping Rs.850 billion ($21 billion) towards education in the Eleventh Plan, which ends in 2012.

This is five times the allocation for the education sector in the Tenth Plan. A ministry official said once the bill is cleared, the funds would be raised from the budget allocated for the Eleventh Plan.

Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia had earlier stated that the central government could not afford the funds needed for the Right to Education Bill and there was no need for it. He was of the view that the government could widen the scope of its existing flagship programmes like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the midday meal scheme to meet the target for free and compulsory education for all.

Law teachers could soon practise in Courts

New Delhi, Jan 27 If the government has its way, teachers in Indian law schools will be able to practise in courts and work as consultants too.

This is being proposed to retain talent in law schools where the remuneration is far less compared to what law experts get outside, resulting in an exodus.

A senior law ministry official said there was an immediate need to reconsider promotional schemes and avenues to promote meritorious faculty members on law campuses.

"Today legal education has to meet not only the requirements of the Bar Council but also trade, commerce and industry. So we need to have really talented law teachers who can train students to meet the challenges in the legal field globally," said the official.

The government has taken serious note of the deteriorating standards of education in law campuses. It is generally felt by policymakers that there is an immediate need to remove the fetters on faculty pertaining to opportunities in legal practice, such as consultancy assignments and legal practice in courts.

"These reforms need to be introduced in a balanced, reasonable and regulated manner to ensure adequate incentives for law faculty without compromising on consistent academic quality," another official suggested.

Even the National Knowledge Commission constituted by the prime minister has made similar suggestions.

"Why can't we have flexibility to appoint those lawyers as faculty members who have an LLB degree, unlike an LLM PG degree, which is the qualification for being a law teacher," suggested a commission member.

Commission chairman Sam Pitroda said there should be a new regulatory mechanism under the Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE) that could deal with all aspects of legal education.

Law Commission Submits Report on Anticipatory Bail

Law Commission Submits Report on Anticipatory Bail - PIB Press Release

The Law Commission of India submitted its 203rd Report on Anticipatory Bail to the Government. The Chairman of the Commission Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, former Supreme Court Judge, presented a copy of the said report to the Union Minister of Law & Justice, Dr. H.R. Bhardwaj, today.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dealing with anticipatory bail, was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. The enforcement of the amended provision was kept in abeyance and expert opinion of the Law Commission sought to suggest a modified version to make the provision workable with suitable safeguards to protect the rights and liberty of the citizens. The Law Commission examined in details the scope and ambit of the existing as well as the amended section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of various judicial pronouncements on the subject.

As regards the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 438, as amended, permitting arrest of the applicant by the police without warrant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in the application, the Law Commission has been of the view that the provision is more of explanatory nature and clarifies that there shall be no bar to such arrest if there are otherwise reasonable grounds to make such arrest. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in M.C. Abraham and another Vs State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 649, the Commission has expressed the view that the mere fact that an anticipatory bail application is rejected is no ground for directing the applicant’s immediate arrest. There may be cases where an application may be rejected and yet the applicant is not put up for trial as, after investigation no material is found against him. Power of arrest, therefore, has to be exercised with due caution and circumspection and not in any mechanical manner. The Commission has thus concluded that it is not necessary to have the Proviso inserted in Section 438(1) as the position on this aspect is already very clear. The Commission has, therefore, recommended the omission of Proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 438, as amended.

As regards Section 438(1B) relating to the presence of the applicant at the time of final hearing, the Law Commission has critically examined the nitty-gritty of restraint and custody to which the applicant may be subjected to in terms of the court’s order under that Section. The Law Commission has come to the conclusion that when the applicant appears in the Court in compliance with the Court’s order and is subjected to the Court’s directions, he may be viewed as in the Court’s custody and this may render the relief of anticipatory bail infructuous. The Commission has, therefore, recommended deletion of sub-section (1B) of Section 438.

The Commission has noted that the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Session and the High Court under Section 438 has generated much avoidable litigation. The Code has not prescribed any specific order in which the two alternative concurrent forums are to be approached for the grant of anticipatory bail. It is left to the option of the applicant to move either the Court of Session or the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail one after another. In order to streamline the procedure, the Commission has recommended insertion of a provision in Section 438 on the lines of Section 397(2) dealing with revision application. Accordingly, it is recommended that if an application under Section 438 is made by a person either to the High Court or the Court of Session, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other Court. In order to provide the remedy of revision against the order of Court of Session in High Court, an Explanation is recommended to be inserted in the Section to the effect that final order for direction under sub-section (1) of Section 438 will not be construed as an interlocutory order. The Report contains a revised text of Section 438 based on its recommendation.

It may be recalled that the amended section inter alia provided for obligatory presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail at the time of final hearing of the application and making final order thereon, if, on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice [Section 438 (1B)]. The amended section also permits arrest of the applicant by the police without warrant on the basis of the accusations apprehended in the anticipatory bail application in cases where either the application is rejected or no interim order is passed thereon [Section 438 (1) Proviso]. There was widespread protest by lawyers against these amendments. The lawyers’ fraternity was of the view that the applicant would be arrested in the event of rejection of his application if present in the Court and thus he might be deprived of moving the higher Court against rejection of his application.

Adoption Law Amended - Non Hindus now at par

The Centre has changed the law to allow non-Hindu parents to claim full parenthood instead of just "guardian" status that they were allowed till now.

The changes in law also seek to encourage adoption by simplifying procedures.

Under the new guidelines issued under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000, notified on October 26, the rules significantly increases the “legal rights of both adopted children and the couples who give them a home,” says the Times of India in a report Saturday

Under the law so far, only Hindu couples who adopted children could claim to be "parents". Non-Hindus were just guardians to their adopted children. This led to the children being denied rights to inherited property besides creating procedural hassles for parents at the time of school admissions etc.

Some clarifications may still be needed on whether the changes would apply to Muslims as the community has its personal laws. These will be cleared in the guidelines to be framed by Central Adoption Research Agency. The new law also makes adoption by inter-faith couples easier.

Under the new guidelines issued by the women and child development ministry under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000, amended last year and notified on October 26, the new rules will also cut red-tapism in adoption procedures while increasing the number of recognised adoption agencies.