Latest news with #BarAssociation
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Judicial integrity paramount: High court rules ‘deemed confirmation' can't override adverse probation reports
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the concept of "deemed confirmation" cannot override an employer's power to analyse work, conduct and behaviour of a probationer to ensure suitability in service, upholding the dismissal of a petitioner from judicial services. "If deemed confirmation is brought into play, notwithstanding the adverse remarks, including that of 'integrity doubtful' based on lacklustre performance, conduct, and behaviour of the petitioner, then an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer, despite being unfit for confirmation, is deemed to be confirmed. This would bring into the service a judge of doubtful integrity, whose service record is tainted with adverse remarks. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands," the high court has held. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel passed the orders while dismissing the petition filed by Ankur Lal, a former judicial officer of Haryana Civil Services (judicial branch). The petitioner sought directions to quash the recommendations dated July 23, 2012, for termination of his probationary service as civil judge (junior division). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Appointed on Feb 13, 2008, Lal was placed on probation for two years, a period later extended by the high court administration. Following an anonymous complaint from the Bar Association, Ferozepur Jhirka, then acting Chief Justice referred the matter to the administrative committee. On July 18, 2012, the committee recommended Lal's services be dispensed with keeping in view his work conduct and overall service record during his posting in Bhiwani. Lal, in his petition, argued that under Rule 7.3 of the Rules of 1951, after completing two years of probation plus an extension of one year, and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, he should have been deemed confirmed. However, the bench rejected his contention, emphasising that the concept of deemed confirmation is anarchy, which was given up a long time ago in service jurisprudence "Even otherwise, the relevant Rule 7.3 proviso clearly stipulates that mere completion of a maximum period of three years' probation would not confer on the probationers the right to be confirmed till there is a permanent vacancy in the cadre," observed the bench while upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from judicial services. BOX 'Perilous concept'Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded since it erodes into the power of the employer to assess work, conduct, and behaviour of the probationer High court
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Criminalisation Of Istanbul Bar Assoc & Dismissal Of Executive Board, A Chilling Attack On The Independence Of Lawyers
GENEVA (30 May 2025) – UN experts* today expressed alarm at the criminal charges against 10 members of the Istanbul Bar Association, and its President, İbrahim Kaboğlu and the arrest of board member Firat Epözdemir, following the Bar Association's statement calling for an effective investigation into the deaths of two journalists in a conflict zone. The President of the Bar Association and its members were charged with disseminating 'terrorist propaganda' and 'public dissemination of misleading information'. 'Criminal prosecution in retaliation for the exercise of free speech is an alarming assault on freedom of expression and lawyers' rights to practice their profession and express their views in line with international standards,' the experts said. 'This attempt to silence the Bar Association by weaponising the law is an appalling violation of international law and sets a troubling precedent.' 'It is particularly unsettling that the criminal investigation follows a statement that called for accountability and justice for journalists killed while doing their work,' they said. 'Efforts to fight impunity, particularly for killings of journalists, should be upheld and not criminalised.' On 21 December 2024, the Istanbul Bar Association issued a statement condemning the deaths of two journalists reportedly killed in a Turkish drone strike in Northern Syria on 19 December 2024. The statement stressed that the targeting of journalists in conflict zones is a violation of international humanitarian law and called for an effective investigation into the deaths of the two journalists. On 22 December 2024, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office launched a criminal investigation against the Bar's leadership, on grounds of disseminating terrorist propagandaand 'publicly disseminating misleading information'. The criminal hearing is scheduled for 28 and 29 May 2025 at the Marmara prison (formerly Silivri prison). Following a lawsuit filed by the same Prosecutor, on 21 March this year, the Istanbul 2nd Assize Court issued a ruling to remove the elected leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association under Article 77/5 of the Attorneyship Law, claiming it had exceeded its professional mandate. The decision mandates the dismissal of the Bar's president and executive board and orders new elections. 'The executive body of a bar association must be able to perform its functions without external interference,' the experts said. They warned that the weaponisation of misinformation and terrorism-related charges to punish and silence calls for justice and accountability was a misuse of the criminal justice system and a clear breach of international law and standards. 'Under international law, counter-terrorism legislation must be sufficiently precise to prevent its use to unjustifiably limit the exercise of fundamental freedoms,' they said. 'This is a case of legal harassment that should be dismissed at the earliest opportunity,' the experts said. 'We call for the immediate release of Firat Epözdemir, who has been detained since 25 January in connection with these accusations.' The experts recalled that the free exercise of the legal profession was crucial to ensure access to justice, oversight of state power, protection of due process and judicial guarantees. 'States must guarantee that those who practice law can do so free from intimidation, obstacles, harassment or interference,' they said, 'their function is key to the right to a fair trial'. The experts have been in touch with Türkiye about their concerns. *The experts: Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Ms. Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
The Bar is too high but never above the law: A response to Ashish Khetan
Ashish Khetan's recent critique of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for accepting a Rs 50 crore donation from industrialists raises legitimate concerns about the integrity and independence of legal institutions. However, his argument, though well-intentioned, is based on a misunderstanding of the structure, functioning, and ethos of the Bar Association, and ultimately conflates institutional assistance with institutional compromise. To begin with, it is essential to distinguish between the SCBA and the Supreme Court itself. The SCBA is not a judicial body. It is a professional association comprising advocates who practice before the Supreme Court. Its functions include promoting legal education, providing welfare benefits to its members, and upholding professional standards. It is neither a regulatory body like the Bar Council nor a judicial body like the Supreme Court. Consequently, the decisions it takes to support its members, such as facilitating insurance through donations, do not impact the independence or impartiality of the judiciary. Khetan's central concern is that by accepting donations from wealthy industrialists—'crumbs off the plate of the filthy rich'—the Bar Association may lose its moral footing or be beholden to such donors. This assumption oversimplifies the realities of funding in professional associations and civil society more broadly. Donations are a common and necessary practice to enable institutions—be they bar associations, universities, hospitals, or NGOs—to meet their objectives. Philanthropy, including corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, is an accepted and encouraged practice under Indian law. Indeed, many industrial contributions to social causes are not only legally sanctioned but statutorily mandated. To equate such support with loss of independence is both speculative and unfair. SCBA office bearers, including Kapil Sibal, have been transparent about the nature of the donations. Sibal's candid acknowledgment that the donors are his personal friends, whom he has represented in court, does not suggest impropriety—it is merely an honest recognition of professional networks. Legal professionals often represent clients across a spectrum, including the government, corporations, NGOs, and individuals. The relationships formed therein do not, and should not, cast a shadow on their integrity or ability to act independently. Moreover, the independence of the Bar is not a function of its sources of funding. It is a function of the conduct, character, and courage of its members. The SCBA comprises advocates from diverse backgrounds and persuasions, who have time and again demonstrated their willingness to critique governments, stand against executive overreach, and speak out against judicial failings. The presence of a donation does not dilute this spirit. If anything, it enables the Association to better serve its members—especially younger lawyers who benefit from health insurance and welfare measures funded through such generosity. It is important to stress that the SCBA is not a homogeneous or hierarchical body. It cannot be held collectively accountable for the personal ideologies of its individual members, just as a university cannot be judged solely on the views of its alumni. The SCBA has, in the past, vocally defended the independence of the judiciary, condemned assaults on legal norms, and mobilized collective opinion on matters of national importance. Its institutional memory and commitment to democratic values remain intact. Khetan's article also suggests that donations from business houses create a perception of quid pro quo. But perceptions must be grounded in fact. If there is evidence of favouritism or compromise, it must be brought to light and acted upon. Until then, insinuations serve only to tarnish without substantiating. In a legal system where integrity is paramount, such allegations require caution, especially when aimed at a collective. The Courts and judges are well trained to ensure that these externalities do not affect their decision. There is also a glaring contradiction in Khetan's stance: would the same critique apply if the donation had come from the government, which remains the largest litigant in the country? Would accepting government grants then imply that the Bar is compromised in its independence from state control? The logic of his critique, if consistently applied, would prohibit all forms of external funding—an unsustainable proposition. As a constitutional lawyer and member of the SCBA, I can say with conviction for myself and almost for the whole bar that we are not beholden to any donor or industrialist, whether or not they have contributed to the SCBA. Our professional obligations, ethical commitments, and pledge to uphold the Constitution are not so fragile as to be swayed by financial patronage of this kind. The judiciary's challenges today lie elsewhere. They lie in the chronic shortage of judges, the staggering backlog of cases, and the lack of administrative reform. The disillusionment of the common litigant stems from the unaccountability of the executive, the inertia of the police machinery, and the government's delays in implementing court orders. To attribute these systemic issues to a donation received by a professional association is to misdirect public ire and distract from the real problems. Khetan's article, at best, serves as a cautionary note—a reminder that institutions must remain vigilant. On that, we agree. Transparency in accepting and disclosing donations is imperative. Bar associations must remain accountable to their members and to the public. But to suggest that they have already failed this test without evidence is premature and unfair. The Supreme Court Bar Association and its members have a serious culture of pro bono matters. I can name at least half a dozen senior advocates whom I have instructed to appear in cases concerning bails, bulldozer action, students' expulsion, custodial violence, demolition and riots. This includes even the most senior lawyer like Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sanjay Hegde and Dr Guruswamy. There is disparity in remuneration amongst legal professionals. This is also because of the unwillingness of the client to remunerate the junior members. The problem of distribution of wealth in India is a problem that is not confined to the legal professional alone. There are systemic changes that must be brought about - and the process of designation of 'senior advocates' being one of them. However, to conflate these with donations is pushing the limits of logic. The examples of conflict of interest, as mentioned by Khetan are simplistic and do not capture the nuances of professional ethics. A lawyer is engaged by a client, and just as a client may choose to not engage the same advocate for his next matter, a lawyer may also (subject to cab-rank rules) choose to decline the brief. The bar against appearing against a previous client is only when the appearance is marred by legal professional privilege or a relationship with the client. Khetan has mentioned too many subjects in one piece, like in quick-stand, fully reasoned none. Finally, the role of bar associations in a democracy must be appreciated in its full complexity. These bodies nurture the legal fraternity, facilitate professional development, and serve as intermediaries between the bar and the bench. Their vibrancy and financial stability are essential for the health of the legal system. In supporting such institutions through lawful, transparent donations, benefactors are not undermining democracy—they are strengthening one of its pillars. The Bar is never above the law. (The author is Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India and Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association)
Al-Ahram Weekly
3 days ago
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Lawyers protest against judicial fees hike Thursday - Courts & Law
Egyptian Lawyers staged protests coordinated by regional bar associations Thursday, in front of all primary courts nationwide, in a continued to oppose recent increases in judicial fees, according to a Lawyers Syndicate's statement. Local branches of the Bar Association organized the protests in response to recent decisions by the Council of Appeal Court heads to impose new fees on digitization services, a measure lawyers described as violating the constitution and the law. The protests came in execution of the resolutions passed during a joint meeting between the General Syndicate Council and heads of regional bar branches, led by the head of the Lawyers Syndicate in Cairo, Abdel-Halim Allam. The gathering aimed to form a united front to challenge the new fee structure imposed by judicial authorities. Allam also chaired an operations room to monitor the nationwide implementation of the protest decisions. He emphasized the importance of unity and commitment during this critical phase, stating that 'the current stage demands cohesion and dedication to serve the nation, protect the dignity of the legal profession, and uphold the Bar's stature.' The lawyers' syndicate has vowed to continue escalating measures against what it deems illegal service fees introduced under the pretext of digital modernisation. The syndicate shared images of protests across multiple governorates on its official Facebook page, including Ismailia, Suez, Mahalla, Port Said, Beni Suef, Fayoum, Dakahliya, Gharbia, Sohag, and Helwan. Additional protests were organized outside courts in Sohag, Giza, Fayoum, Kafr El-Sheikh, North Sinai, Alexandria, Qalyoubiya, and New Cairo. This strike is the third of its kind to protest against the increase in judicial fees. On 14 April, Egyptian lawyers launched the first stage of their escalation campaign against the decision, holding a 30-minute protest outside courthouses nationwide. On 18 May, lawyers organized another two-day nationwide general strike, boycotting hearings in all criminal courts nationwide. In March, the Council of Appeal Court raised judicial fees on digitization services, sparking widespread anger from the legal community. In response, the Lawyers Syndicate called on its members across all governorates to participate in protests as an initial step in a broader plan to oppose the new charges. The protests highlight the legal community's growing concerns over what they view as unjustified financial burdens on litigants and a potential barrier to accessing justice. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Web Release
6 days ago
- Business
- Web Release
Closing of the first edition of Beirut Arbitration Days: Professor Najib Hage-Chahine's Ten Recommendations to Cement Beirut as the Regional Capital of Arbitration
Closing of the first edition of Beirut Arbitration Days: Professor Najib Hage-Chahine's Ten Recommendations to Cement Beirut as the Regional Capital of Arbitration In the presence of the President of the Beirut Bar Association, Mr. Fadi Masri, and at the initiative of the event's creator, Professor Najib Hage-Chahine, the first edition of 'Beirut Arbitration Days' concluded on 22 May 2025 after attracting more than 1,000 participants from 40 countries, 60 international speakers and 40 supporting organizations. Prime Minister Judge Nawaf Salam opened the conference, confirming Lebanon's ability 'to regain its regional and international role in arbitration.' Both Minister of Justice Judge Adel Nassar and Minister of Information Dr. Paul Morcos affirmed the government's support for spreading the culture of arbitration, while the President of the Bar Association stressed the Bar's commitment to consolidating this course. The Ten Recommendations of Professor Najib Hage-Chahine In the closing session, Professor Najib Hage-Chahine presented ten practical recommendations: Lawyers: Insert an arbitration clause in contracts and choose Beirut as the seat. Judiciary: Support the independence of arbitrators and accelerate annulment and enforcement proceedings. Legislators: Update the Arbitration Law to align with the New York Convention and international standards. Government: Integrate arbitration into investment-attraction policies and develop specialized digital infrastructure. Arbitrators: Commit to the highest levels of transparency, ethics, and continuous training. Experts: Adopt precise scientific models in the assessment of damages and act as support to arbitral tribunals, not as a party in the dispute. Arbitration centers: Strengthen regional cooperation and embrace technology and diversity. Universities: Integrate arbitration into curricula and provide practical training for students. Students and youth: Engage in moot courts and fellowship programs. Bar Association: Entrench LIAC-BBA as a strategic arm for independent arbitration. The event concluded with Professor Hage-Chahine affirming that 'Beirut has returned as the capital of Arab arbitration' and inviting participants to the next edition, 'Beirut Arbitration Days 2026,' under the slogan Beirut Nutrix Legum.
