SC Notice To Centre On Lawyers’ Privileges Plea
The petitioner is a lawyer and, for about 11 years, has been urging the authorities, including the Bar Council, to draft this Bill”: Nishant R. Katneshwarkar
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Centre and other parties on a petition concerning issues faced by lawyers, particularly breaches of their privileges. The court tagged this petition with a pending suo motu matter addressing investigating agencies summoning lawyers who provide legal opinions or represent clients during probes.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notices to the Centre, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and others. The petition was filed by advocate Aaditya Gore, who has pursued the Advocates (Protection) Bill before the government since 2014.
“The petitioner is a lawyer and, for about 11 years, has been urging the authorities, including the Bar Council, to draft this Bill,” noted advocate Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, appearing for Gore. The bench observed that the Bill is currently under consideration.
The petition seeks an order directing the authorities to constitute a committee under Section 10(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, read with other relevant provisions, to safeguard lawyers’ privileges. Section 10 of the Act pertains to the constitution of committees other than disciplinary ones.
While the Advocates (Protection) Bill is pending before the Law Commission of India, Gore wrote to the BCI, requesting adoption of rules to protect advocates’ privileges under its powers in Section 7(d) of the Advocates Act.
“This petition, filed in public interest, is necessitated by various reported incidents that demonstrate the urgent need for bar councils to address breaches of privilege and take effective measures to protect advocates,” the plea states. It argues that an effective justice system must ensure lawyers can perform their duties fearlessly and independently.
Referring to instances of assault on advocates, the petition warns: “Attacks on advocates not only affect their personal dignity but also severely undermine the dignity and functionality of the administration of justice.”
