Latest news with #SCBA
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- General
- Hamilton Spectator
Kootenay Ignite Mentorship Society hosts camp to empower young female firefighters
The registration deadline for a high school girls' firefighting camp in Creston has been extended to June 15. The Kootenay Ignite Mentorship Society's annual camp, running July 11 to 13, empowers young women to explore the profession of firefighting in a unique team environment. Participants are mentored through a wide variety of firefighting and rescue skill stations by all women firefighters. 'KIMS [Kootenay Ignite Mentorship Society] was established to bring out unique opportunities for young women to find their passion, to challenge themselves, to inspire, and to be inspired,' Julie Winter, director on the KIMS board and lieutenant at Passmore Fire Department, told the Valley Voice. 'We will continue to bring together powerful females who are already embedded in the career to encourage and mentor these young campers, who come eager and ready to learn.' Winter has served as a mentor and instructor for two years. Women make up only 4% of career firefighters, and she hopes the camp will encourage girls to join the service. 'When I first joined, I was one of two women on the Sparwood Fire Department,' said Winter. 'The guys were wonderful, but it's nice to have the camaraderie of other women.' Participants are split into groups, each with a mentor to guide them to stations and help with gear. Most have not been exposed to firefighting, said Winter, so mentors ensure each participant is dressed properly. Both the mentors and instructors share their valuable experiences as women firefighters, and support the girls to challenge themselves and learn new skills. 'The instructors get as much out of it as the girls do,' said Winter. 'Plus: building those strong female relationships is awesome, too.' KIMS began as Camp Ignite – Kootenay Division in 2023, started by Creston's assistant fire chief Laura Dodman, who was inspired by Camp Ignite Vancouver. After two successful years, it evolved into KIMS and became a non-profit society. Ten girls attended in 2023, and 12 in 2024. Winter said they are hoping for 18 this year, but can accommodate more if the interest is there. Food and accommodation are provided. 'I can attest to what a remarkable weekend it is,' she said. 'We had a girl that became emotional putting on the SCBA [self-contained breathing apparatus]. But by Sunday, I was running the live fire simulator and she was wearing the SCBA, crawling around in a smoky environment, trying to find the seed of the fire. She cried tears of happiness because she was so proud of herself for overcoming her fear.' KIMS fundraises every year for camp costs. Passmore Social Club kindly sponsored a camper, and three bursaries are given out at the end of the weekend, thanks to Coast Ropes, Associated Fire Safety Group, and Brogan Safety. To sign-up, make a donation, or get more information, visit , or email kootenayignite@ . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
SCAORA acting beyond its mandate: SCBA president to CJI
New Delhi, The Supreme Court Bar Association president on Wednesday wrote to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai accusing the top court's advocates on record association of "overstepping" its mandate. The SCBA claimed that the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association had issued communications on matters relating to the general infrastructure and bar members of the top court. In his letter to the CJI, Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh said he wanted to ensure that the functioning of this institution remained "cohesive, disciplined, and free from unnecessary overlaps" or conflicts-particularly in matters concerning the general interests of the bar or Supreme Court infrastructure. He underlined the need to promote a unified voice within the bar while ensuring "seamless collaboration" and respect for institutional integrity and maintaining harmony between the bar and the bench. "Surprisingly, in the recent times, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association , while acting beyond its mandate, has been issuing communications on matters relating to the general infrastructure, facilities and issues concerning general Bar members of the Supreme Court. These subjects strictly fall within the exclusive domain of SCBA, which represents the collective interests of all categories of lawyers practising in the Supreme Court," Singh's letter said. He continued, "SCBA today comprises 22,734 members, which include 10,013 permanent members and 12,309 temporary members. There are 401 pending membership requests at present. These 22,734 members include 906 senior advocates, AoRs, and about 19,000 non-AoR practitioners." Notably, Singh said, there were 3,786 AoRs registered with the Supreme Court as of now and 3,000 of them were members of the SCAORA. "In that view of the matter, SCAORA does not even represent all AoRs registered in Supreme Court." Referring to a recent issue raised by the SCAORA to the secretary general, Supreme Court on biometric entry for lawyers, Singh said there was absolutely no question of members of the bar voluntarily offering such extensive personal information to the registry of the Supreme Court. "If on the other hand, there is any mandate from the Supreme Court, for security reasons, upon discussion with the SCBA, the Bar would, of course, fully cooperate," the letter said. Singh said sharing such biometric data by lawyers could be counter effective, considering the increased instances of breach of data privacy. He said SCAORA's scope should be limited to issues "concerning AoR practice" such as matters related to filing procedures, registry protocols, and AoR- specific concerns. The letter claimed that the SCBA, and not the SCAORA, was the only recognised court-annexed bar association that represented the members regularly practising in the Supreme Court.
New Indian Express
7 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)
Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Adani to Ambani: Sibal gets India Inc to pay Rs 50 cr for lawyers' health cover
SENIOR ADVOCATE Kapil Sibal, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has raised Rs 50 crore from a few big industrialists to fund a group medical insurance policy for the Bar's members, has met with opposition from a section within the association. 'As the new SCBA president, my first endeavour will be to discuss this policy in the Executive Committee meeting… My personal view is that this policy definitely needs to be renegotiated or scrapped, because the premium that we are paying for a Rs 2 lakh cover is highly disproportionate to the premium that we pay for a Rs 5 lakh cover,' Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who was elected the new president of the Bar body last week, told The Indian Express. At a General Body Meeting of the SCBA on May 5, Singh had expressed his opposition. To a question on whether Sibal's endeavour raised issues of conflict of interest, Singh said it depends on whether these are CSR funds. 'There is no conflict if its not CSR funds as the money is given to the association and not to any individual,' he said. When contacted, Sibal said, 'There is no conflict of interest here. Where is the question? The donation is to the association and not to any member. Moreover, personally, I have and may appear again against or in favour of many of these companies. And I charge them. Our professional career is not based on our friendships.' Sibal said Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries) contributed Rs 10 crore, while Anil Ambani (Reliance Group), Gautam Adani (Adani Group), N Chandrasekharan (Tata Sons), Samir Mehta (Torrent Group), G M Rao (GMR Group), Kumar Mangalam Birla (Aditya Birla Group), Anil Aggarwal (Vedanta) and Lakshmi Mittal (ArcelorMittal) gave Rs 5 crore each. He said corporates would get tax exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Donations made to specified institutions are allowed to be deducted from the taxable income under Section 80G. SCBA's new President Singh said his attempt would be (to ensure) that this policy was made available only to needy members of the Bar or members who support elderly parents. 'It should not be made available for people like us. The policy, as announced by the earlier Executive Committee, is meant for everybody, including me, Mr Sibal etc. This kind of money can never be utilised for that…All this will be done only after discussing with my Executive Committee.' According to Sibal, 95 per cent of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court do not earn well. 'They come from all over the country to Delhi…to practise…most of them are not earning well… they have to spend money on rent, their families… and if they fall ill, have to foot medical bills.' He said there are about 2,700-2,800 members of the SCBA who have voting rights, and will be eligible for the health cover. Addressing an event organised by the SCBA on May 21, Sibal explained how he went about raising the money. 'I started sort of collecting from those who I have served for the last 52 years… I rang up Anil Aggarwal of Vedanta. He readily agreed and gave us a contribution of Rs 5 crore. I rang up Anil Ambani, a dear friend of mine, and he had no choice but to say yes. So he gave Rs 5 crore. I rang up the GMR Group, both Mr Rao as well as Mr Bhaskar Chandran… and they said, 'Sir, now that you have asked, we will make sure that it happens', and it happened, Rs 5 crore,' said Sibal. 'I rang up Gautam Adani, and I said it's time for you to contribute because you are more or less the emperor of India now and Rs 5 crore is too little for you. He said if you want more, I will give more, but here is Rs 5 crore. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' Sibal said. 'Mr Kumar Mangalam Birla, again an old friend of mine… served the Birla empire for many years…never asked them for anything. So I said, another Rs 5 crore from you, and he said yes,' he said. 'Then I rang up another friend of mine, Lakshmi Mittal from London. He picked up the phone and I made that request. He said somebody will get in touch with you soon. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' he said. 'Then again, Mukesh Ambani. I knew Dhirubhai Ambani when I was a young lawyer and we had a very warm relationship…These boys were kids and they used to come to me and I used to do most of their matters in Bombay. So I asked him and he said how much do you want. I said Rs 10 crore. He said you will have the cheque soon. So he gave Rs 10 crore,' Sibal said. 'Then I rang up Natarajan Chandrasekaran of Tata, whom I also know very well…and he also did not hesitate. So he gave Rs 5 crore,' the senior counsel said. 'And from the Torrent Group, Mr Samir Mehta, again a good friend of mine, and, in fact, Dushyant Dave told me, if he doesn't give it, let me know, I will make a call to him. But it didn't really happen. I asked him, he gave Rs 5 crore… In this process, we have Rs 50 crore with us,' Sibal said. He also outlined what was done after raising the amount. 'I contacted Apollo group, who are also my clients. I know the head of the family, head of the Apollo group is an old friend of mine. So I said look, we want you to handle this. He sort of looked at the market and got hold of a company called the National Insurance Company. And we started talking to the National Insurance Company as to what kind of benefits our young lawyers can get. I want to tell you… there is no insurance policy in this country that gives so many benefits as this one does,' he said. Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, who also addressed the event, congratulated the SCBA for raising Rs 50 crore. 'Undoubtedly, this is a remarkable achievement that reflects deep concern for the welfare of the legal community,' he said. Pointing to the difficulties that young lawyers face with no regular income to meet their needs, the CJI said: 'Providing good health insurance, therefore, is not just a welfare measure, it is a vital support system. It offers the lawyers a degree of financial security and peace of mind in times of medical need.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
New Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
When the bar turns to billionaires: What ₹50 crore in donations says about the state of India's legal profession
At the Supreme Court's 75th anniversary celebrations on Wednesday, Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal proudly announced that on his appeal a handful of India's top industrialists had written checks totaling Rs 50 crore so that lawyers registered with SCBA can have free, cashless health insurance up to the tune of Rs 2 lakh each. On the face of it, it may seem like an innocuous, even laudatory act. But if one thinks hard, it marks a deeply troubling moment for the legal profession in the country. In many ways, it's also a stark indictment of the rapidly eroding standards in India's public life. For generations of lawyers, legal idealism and the Indian Constitution have remained their true north. In our constitutional democracy, lawyers have played a vital role in upholding the rule of law and defending individual liberties and freedoms. The likes of Nani Palkhivala, MC Setalvad, CK Daphtary, and Shanti Bhushan not only set high standards for professional ethics and advocacy; they also influenced the course of our constitutional law and its evolution. It is therefore essential that the legal profession must neither be beholden to big capital nor reliant on state patronage. What message does SCBA's act of seeking crumbs off the plate of India's filthy rich send to the ordinary litigants who turn to the Supreme Court as the ultimate forum for justice and relief? That even the lawyers practicing at the highest court of the land must rely on the generosity of the ultra-wealthy to secure ₹2 lakh in annual health coverage? That the haloed profession is dependent on the charity of those who are most entangled with the legal system? Telling selection The selection of industrialists approached for this so-called charity is telling. Some of the corporate groups involved here rank among the most frequent and influential litigants before the Supreme Court. Many of these benefactors regularly face judicial and public scrutiny—often standing on the opposite side of legal battles against project-displaced people, farmers, public interest litigants, or vulnerable communities. This sort of chumminess between the legal profession and the most powerful corporate litigants cannot be healthy for the profession or for the system of justice itself. Poor litigants already hold a very dim view of the justice system. Many believe that justice is not delivered but bought. When important emblems of the justice system—like the SCBA—appear to be dependent on handouts from select powerful industrialists, it would further deepen the commonly-held skepticism in the justice delivery system. Ironically, the bar council of India's rules lays much stress on the independence of lawyers. We are perhaps the only country in the world that doesn't allow law professors to practice law in the courts. The rationale is that salaried employment compromises a lawyer's independence and their ability to act with undivided loyalty to a client or the court. Seen in this light, how disturbing it is that the profession as a whole is parading its financial vulnerability to the point of seeking donations. And that too from industrialists who, because of the nature and extent of their business activities, are among the highest-paying clients, involved in multiple litigations, and deal in regulated and core sectors directly affecting the common man. Chump change that lays bare a harsh truth It's also important to put the total sum of ₹50 crore donated by two Ambanis, Adani, Birla, Mittal, Mehta of Torrent Group, and Agarwal of Vedanta Group in perspective. It is 1% of what Mukesh Ambani recently spent (approximately ₹5,000 crore) on the wedding of his youngest son, Anant Ambani. It is 0.5% of ₹10,000 crore that Gautam Adani pledged for social causes during his son Jeet's wedding. It is a fraction of the total amount of electoral bonds the Vedanta Group purchased between April 2019 and January 2024. The point is that Rs 5 crore or 10 crore of donation is chump change for these industrialists. On the other hand, the integrity and independence of the legal profession are priceless. The bar and the bench are sacred pillars on which the credibility of the justice system rests. Therefore, the act of seeking donations from a select few corporate groups to fund a health insurance scheme for lawyers undermines the sanctity of a profession that has been at the vanguard of India's independence, its constitutional founding, and its democratic framework. It also tells of the dangerous place we have arrived at as a nation—the extreme concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few. The inequality of wealth and income has reached such extreme proportions that elite philanthropy is seen as a normal substitute for state welfarism and social protections. When even institutions like SCBA become dependent on donations from the billionaires, it signals something far deeper: the creeping monopolisation by big capital of the society itself. Beyond reflecting the broader wealth inequality in general, this move also underscores the deep disparities and dysfunctionalities within the administration of the legal profession itself. The annual premium for a ₹2 lakh health insurance policy typically ranges from ₹4,000 to ₹6,500 per year. The fact that SCBA members are expected to be grateful for donations that merely save them a few thousand rupees in annual insurance premiums lays bare a harsh truth: only a small section of lawyers earn substantial fees, while the rest struggle. Lack of a level-playing field and some vital questions There is a lack of a level-playing field between established legal chambers and newcomers. To a large extent, the legal practice, especially in the Supreme Court, is clannish. A small group of senior advocates dominates high-stakes litigation, often taking on dozens of briefs each week, crowding out junior advocates. Volumes have been written critiquing elitism, exclusion, and influence-driven selections of designation of 'Senior Advocates.' Judges, too, are mostly selected from a narrow pool of senior lawyers. The conflict of interest among senior advocates is rampant. Unlike in many foreign jurisdictions, leading lawyers in India often represent the same client in one case and then appear against them in another—sometimes on the very same day. Many leading lawyers are openly aligned with political parties, some even are Rajya Sabha members. Some have kept on switching roles as advocates, parliamentarians, and party spokespersons. This casts a serious shadow over their allegiance to the profession and their duty to the court. India also does not have a legal culture strongly promoting pro bono work by the top lawyers and elite law firms. On the other hand, most foreign jurisdictions, like the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada, either greatly encourage or mandate pro bono work. At several elite law firms in the US—like Skadden, Sullivan & Cromwell, and WilmerHale—pro bono work is valued equally with billable hours in performance evaluations. More than a handout from India's richest few, the legal profession in general and the SCBA in particular need systemic reforms. Shouldn't SCBA ask its leading lights to compulsorily take certain hours of pro bono work every week? Shouldn't SCBA debate policy questions like limits on the number of briefs a senior advocate can take in a week? These are important policy questions that need to be discussed. SCBA should also lay out a strong legal ethics framework for its members, with the most senior lawyers leading the way. Grave error of judgment Bar associations should be built around institutional funding, member dues, and endowments for public-interest programs—not private solicitations from powerful business houses. It would be unthinkable for the American Bar Association (ABA) or the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) to publicly seek donations from Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Warren Buffett to fund basic welfare schemes like health insurance for lawyers. The SCBA has shown a grave error of judgment in seeking donations from a few corporate honchos. It would have been better had the SCBA and its president focused more on democratising, reforming, and strengthening the legal profession. The SCBA should immediately return the Rs 50 crore. Else, it would leave a lasting stain on the profession. If medical insurance is such a pressing need, the top 10 highest-paid lawyers can donate the fees from their five individual appearances, and the corpus would most probably cross Rs 50 crore. As they say, charity begins at home. (Ashish Khetan is an Indian lawyer and journalist. Views are personal.)
