Bar Council of Delhi welcomes SC verdict striking down disciplinary rules framed by Madras HC for advocates

Welcoming the Supreme Court ruling which struck down the Disciplinary Rules for advocates framed by the Madras High Court, the Bar Council of Delhi has stated that the verdict has “upheld the autonomy and dignity of the Bar”..“.. (The Supreme Court) has gone to the extent to hold that Bar is independent of Bench and under Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar enjoys the autonomous status having disciplinary control assigned to the Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India.”.The statement was issued in a press release by the Bar Council of Delhi, dated January 31..The Press Release “appreciates” several observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgement..“We appreciate the observations of the Hon’ble Court that the Bar Councils have a crucial role to play in a democratic society to ensure the protection of human rights in particular due process and fair trial guarantees..We appreciate the observation of the Hon’ble Court that the Bar is an integral part of the judicial administration and its role in the legal system is significant”..BCD also declares,.“The independence of the Bar is on equal footing, it cannot be ignored and compromised and if lawyers have the fear of the judiciary or from elsewhere, that is not conducive to the effectiveness of judiciary itself, that would be self-destructive.”.It thus reiterates that the framing of rules qua disciplinary action against advocates is within the exclusive domain of State Bar Councils, the statutory body under the Advocates Act..On January 28, the Supreme Court struck down the disciplinary Rules framed by Madras High Court for lawyers, which were inserted by way of an amendment to the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970. The amended Rules contained grounds on which an advocate could be debarred by the High Court from appearing before the High Court and all subordinate courts. These grounds included abusing/browbeating a judge, spreading unfounded allegations against a judge, and appearing in court under the influence of alcohol..Read the Press Release: