A 3 Judge bench in Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh issued directions resulting in the Law Commission Report No.266. The Supreme Court Bench was hearing a matter filed under S.19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It recommended looking into the regulatory mechanisms governing the legal profession. This was due to the refusal of the Councils, in this particular case, to take action against the concerned advocate. Which is similar to what has happened with us in the case of G.A.Srikante Gowda and M.Amaranatha.
What is the 266th Report of the Law Commission?
The Law Commission’s remit is to look at reforming the law in the interest of justice. Law Commission of India Report No.266 specifically addresses the issue of regulation of the legal profession. Because of which it meant re-looking at the Advocates Act, 1961. With the result that the Law Commission recommended comprehensive amendments to the Advocates Act.
The Report addresses several issues. Prominently this included advocates’ strikes and boycotts impacting on the administration of justice. It also addressed advocates’ contemptuous behaviour. As well as the feasibility of the Advocates’ Act allowing someone who’s criminally convicted to continue to practice law.
Law Commission Report Recommends Inclusion of Lay People in Governing Councils
This Law Commission Report takes account of the standard of legal profession today. It made very important recommendations concerning the well being of the legal profession. Interests of the litigant public was an important determinant. As well as looking at the relationship between regulation of the legal profession and administration of justice.
Very importantly the Report acknowledges the presence of fake advocates in the system.
The 266th Report recommended amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961. This included the introduction of lay members into the Governing Council of the Bar Councils. This was to be along the lines of the Legal Services Board in the UK which functions with a lay majority. The Chairperson of the Board is also a lay person due to the perceived failure of self regulation.
No Lay Persons’ Land
The Report met with widespread condemnation by the Advocates’ regulatory bodies. There has been no implementation of the recommendations as far as I know. Tragically so.
It is also telling that advocates are mobilized to push for the Advocates (Protection) Bill 2021 that is extremely punitive towards litigants/non-advocates. This bill will dissuade litigants/non-advocates from filing complaints or litigating against advocates through the use of criminal law against them. On the other hand there was no such push for the Legal Practitioners (Regulations and Maintenance of Standards in Professions, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Bill, 2010 that sought to set up a Legal Services Board along the lines of the one in the UK.
The refusal to acknowledge litigants as important stakeholders in the justice system – by regulatory bodies, the courts and the legislature leaves a gaping hole in the law and the justice system. There cannot be blanket immunity in practice.
What does the 266th Law Commission Report say about Fake Advocates?
“11.1 As per recent media reports, the Bar Council of India conducted verification of advocates under the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, and it was reported that a very high percentage (33 to 45%) of lawyers were fake. Such lawyers were practicing either with the fake law degree or without any degree at all. The process of verification is not yet complete and the so-called bogus lawyers could be identified only by scrutiny.
Apprehension has been raised that the alleged bogus lawyers could have succeeded in making entry in the judiciary, government services and some of them could have been appointed as Government pleaders, Law Officers, etc. Such persons might have succeeded in mission by impersonation and entering into criminal conspiracy. Thus legal advice offered by such persons could affect the deliverance and quality of justice and their mere existence in legal system would definitely erode the public trust.”
The Law Commission Report Recommendations Regarding Fake Advocates
The 266th Report recommended periodic scrutiny and verification of advocates. Included in this is the making of Bar Council of India Rules to facilitate the same. The verification, the Law Commission stated, included verifying antecedents and place of practice. In order to ensure the weeding out of fake advocates it recommended the creation of a data based web portal.