- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Gujarat High Court Directs Bar Council Of India And Bar Council Of Gujarat To Ascertain The Competence Of Lawyers
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Gujarat High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Gujarat (BCG) to come up with a mechanism to assess the competence of lawyers in conducting cases before the court.The direction came as the court heard a suo motu PIL by the high court administration after a judgment delivered by Justice Bela Trivedi on January 11 against a lawyer...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Gujarat High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Gujarat (BCG) to come up with a mechanism to assess the competence of lawyers in conducting cases before the court.
The direction came as the court heard a suo motu PIL by the high court administration after a judgment delivered by Justice Bela Trivedi on January 11 against a lawyer Girish Das for failure to conduct his matter properly before her court.
The PIL sought a two-fold solution to the problem of lack of competence of lawyers. One solution is to frame rules in this regard while the second option is to organize regular training for lawyers on how to conduct matters, as well as the ethics and etiquette they need to follow in the courtroom.
In a judgment pronounced on January 11, Justice Bela Trivedi had imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on advocate Girish Das for his failure to conduct the case of his clients and entering into useless arguments despite being issued several warnings.
According to the judgment, though the case filed by Girish Das was related to a notice issued under the Town Planning Act, he kept on arguing about provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The judgment stated that he was completely ignorant about the facts of the case or the laws applicable to it.
After the court informed him orally that it was not inclined to entertain the petition and would dismiss it with the cost to be paid by Das and not by petitioners, he had the audacity to say that this was not the final court and that he would approach the Supreme Court, the judgment had stated.