Manipulation of Public Issue, Ante-Dated Stock-Invests by Chartered Accountant Unbecoming of the Profession: Delhi High Court Suspends ICAI Member for One Year Allegations Show Continuing Offence— MP High Court Declines to Quash FIR Against NRI Husband, In-Laws Accused of Dowry Demands and Cruelty Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Direction: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Against Magistrate’s Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC Evidence Recorded in Section 125 CrPC Proceedings Cannot Be Mechanically Relied Upon in Divorce Suits: Karnataka High Court Dismissal Was Disproportionate: Supreme Court Converts RPF Constable’s Removal Into Compulsory Retirement Post Acquittal 16 Years Is Not Just Delay, It's A Decisive Factor In Granting Relief: Supreme Court Denies Back Wages Despite Illegal Termination, Awards ₹2.5 Lakh Compensation Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appellate Court Can Admit Crucial Public Documents to Fill Lacunae: Andhra Pradesh High Court When Suspicion Clouds the Testament: Allahabad High Court Affirms Rejection of Unregistered Will Due to Active Role of Propounder and Contradictions Purchasers Derive No Independent Right from a Terminated Developer: Bombay High Court Reiterates in Redevelopment Dispute Appeal Maintainable Against Discharge of Contempt Rule If Single Judge Modifies Substantive Rights: Calcutta High Court Oil Company Cannot Withdraw LOI on a Fault It Created — Bombay High Court Restores Petrol Pump Dealership for Woman Entrepreneur Admissions of an Acted-Upon Partition Cannot Be Defeated by Revenue Entries: Karnataka High Court Mere Apprehension of Tampering Cannot Justify Forensic Probe: Delhi High Court Promissory Note Is a Mercantile Document When Executed for Business Purposes - Suits Maintainable Before Commercial Courts: Madras High Court An Illiterate Father, Taken to the Registrar in an Autorickshaw, Can’t Be Assumed to Have Consciously Partitioned Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Restores Trial Court’s Partition Decree Insurance Claim No Shield Against Recovery: Civil Court Can't Interfere With SARFAESI Proceedings: Delhi High Court Tears Down Borrower's Suit Sub-Registrar Cannot Act on Private Objections or Police Letters: Madras High Court Slams Refusal to Register Sale Deed Based on Unsubstantiated Protest No Declaration Of Ownership Can Be Granted When Title, Possession, And Vendor's Ownership All Remain Unproven: Punjab & Haryana High Court In a Suit for Bare Injunction, Court Has Only One Question — Who Was in Possession on the Date of Suit?: Karnataka High Court Mere Living Together Doesn't Create a Composite Family: Andhra Pradesh High Court Overturns Partition Decree, Upholds Validity of Century-Old Sale Deed

Supreme Court provides mechanism for redressal of grievances of Advocates/Bar Associations

06 October 2025 12:01 PM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement on April 20, 2023, the Supreme Court of India has directed the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) at different levels for redressal of grievances of Advocates/Bar Associations. The application had been filed by the Bar Council of India, which suggested various measures for controlling illegal and unreasonable strikes and boycotts by the advocates. The Council also proposed a mechanism for redressal of grievances of Advocates/Bar Associations at all levels.

Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate and Chairman of the Bar Council of India, submitted that the Bar Council is of the firm view and opinion that the illegal and unreasonable strikes and boycott are always bad and the Bar Councils can never approve or encourage such practices. However, the Bar Council of India and all the representatives of the lawyers were of the unanimous opinion that there should be a grievance redressal mechanism available to Advocates at all levels from the Talukas/Muffasils/District Courts, High Courts where the members of the Bar could vent their grievances.

The Supreme Court, while hearing the application, reiterated that no member of the Bar can go on strike and/or abstain himself from court working. The Court emphasized that if the member of the Bar has any genuine grievance or difficulty being faced, they can make a representation and it is appropriate that their genuine grievances are considered by some forum so that such strikes can be avoided.

Supreme Court directed all the High Courts to constitute Grievance Redressal Committee in their respective High Courts which may be headed by the Chief Justice and such a grievance redressal committee be consisting of two other senior Judges, one each from service and one from the Bar to be nominated by the Chief Justice as well as the Advocate General, Chairman of the Bar Council of the State and President of the High Court Bar Association. The High Court may also consider to constitute the similar Grievance Redressal Committee at the District Court level.

The Court observed that the Grievance Redressal Committee may consider the genuine grievance related to the difference of opinion or dissatisfaction because of procedural changes in filing/listing of the matters of the respective High Courts or any District Courts in their respective States and any genuine grievance pertaining to misbehave of any member of the lower judiciary, provided such grievance must be genuine and not to keep the pressure on any judicial officer.

The Registry has been directed to send the copies of this order to Registrar General of all the High Courts for further steps in terms of the present order. This judgement is likely to have a significant impact on the functioning of the judiciary in India, as it seeks to provide a mechanism for redressal of grievances of Advocates/Bar Associations and reduce the incidents of strikes and boycotts.

District Bar Association Dehradun Vs Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.

Latest Legal News