Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

MP High Court Denies Recognition to Splinter Bar Association, Emphasizes "One Bar, One Place" Policy

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Madhya Pradesh High Court affirms State Bar Council's decision to reject recognition for the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur.

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the State Bar Council to deny separate recognition to the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur. The court emphasized the principle of maintaining a single bar association per court campus to ensure streamlined administration and avoid factionalism.

The writ petition No. 7551 of 2016 was filed by the High Court Advocates Bar Association through its Secretary, challenging the order dated February 5, 2018, by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners sought recognition to avail benefits of welfare schemes launched by the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council. However, the Recognition Committee had rejected their application, citing policies that permit only one bar association per high court campus.

Credibility of "One Bar, One Place" Policy:

The court supported the "One Bar, One Place" policy, highlighting its importance in maintaining order and unity within the legal fraternity. Justice Vivek Agarwal noted, "The integration of the bar into a single class of legal practitioners known as advocates, with only a division based on merit, is a fundamental principle"​​.

The petitioners argued that their association had significantly contributed to the welfare of advocates and organized numerous legal educational events. They contended that their efforts and investments should warrant recognition. However, the court observed that all members of the petitioner association were also members of the recognized High Court Bar Association or the District Court Bar Association, thus already availing the welfare schemes​​.

The court extensively discussed the principles governing the recognition of bar associations under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982. It reaffirmed that the aim of these statutes is to promote unified bar associations to effectively implement welfare schemes. "The purpose of a Bar Association mainly revolves around seeking the implementation of welfare schemes for advocates," the bench stated​​.

Justice Vivek Agarwal remarked, "Granting recognition to a parallel body without any substantial justification would undermine the unity and effective administration of the bar"​​.

The High Court's decision to uphold the State Bar Council's order underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining a unified bar association structure. This ruling reinforces the principle that the existence of multiple associations within the same court campus is not conducive to the legal profession's collective welfare. By affirming this policy, the judgment aims to prevent unnecessary fragmentation within the bar, ensuring that welfare schemes and resources are optimally utilized.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

High Court Advocates Bar Association vs. Bar Council of India & Others

Similar News