The Crossbill Team
Hours after former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appeared before the Calcutta High Court on Thrusday (May 14) dressed in advocate’s robes, the Bar Council of India initiated a formal inquiry into her professional status as a practising lawyer and sought clarification from the West Bengal State Bar Council regarding her enrolment records.
In an official communication addressed to the secretary of the state Bar Council, the BCI directed that complete details be submitted before May 16.
The council stated that it had taken note of media reports showing Banerjee appearing before the High Court in advocate’s attire and sought verification of whether she continues to remain enrolled as an advocate.
The communication said, “The Bar Council of India Rules lay down, inter alia, the standards of professional conduct and etiquette applicable to advocates. Further, Part VI, Chapter IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, titled ‘Form of Dresses or Robes to be Worn by Advocates’ provides for the dress to be worn by advocates appearing before the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals or authorities, including the wearing of bands and advocates’ gowns in the manner prescribed.”
The BCI requested the state council to provide “her enrolment number, if enrolled with the State Bar Council of West Bengal … the date of her enrolment with the State Bar Council…” and also clarify “whether her name presently continues on the State Roll of Advocates maintained by the State Bar Council”.
It further asked the council to confirm “whether she had, at any point during her tenure as Chief Minister of West Bengal, given any intimation of voluntary suspension / suspension of practice / cessation from practise”.
The inquiry also sought information on “whether any Certificate of Practice / relevant practice-status record in her favour is available with the State Bar Council, and whether the same is presently valid, active, suspended, or otherwise” and “whether any other record, intimation, communication, order, or entry exists in relation to her entitlement to practise during or after her tenure as Chief Minister”.
The BCI additionally instructed the state Bar Council “to ensure that the information furnished is based strictly on contemporaneous official records … including the State Roll, enrolment register, Certificate of Practice records, inward / receipt registers, suspension or cessation of practice records, resumption records, and any related file notings or orders”.
It also directed that “certified copies of all such records be supplied, duly authenticated by the Secretary of the State Bar Council, with page numbers, register references, dates of entries, inward diary numbers, if any, and the present custody details of the original records.”
The development has triggered a procedural review within legal circles regarding eligibility norms governing appearances before constitutional courts.
In an official communication addressed to the secretary of the state Bar Council, the BCI directed that complete details be submitted before May 16.
The council stated that it had taken note of media reports showing Banerjee appearing before the High Court in advocate’s attire and sought verification of whether she continues to remain enrolled as an advocate.
The communication said, “The Bar Council of India Rules lay down, inter alia, the standards of professional conduct and etiquette applicable to advocates. Further, Part VI, Chapter IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, titled ‘Form of Dresses or Robes to be Worn by Advocates’ provides for the dress to be worn by advocates appearing before the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals or authorities, including the wearing of bands and advocates’ gowns in the manner prescribed.”
The BCI requested the state council to provide “her enrolment number, if enrolled with the State Bar Council of West Bengal … the date of her enrolment with the State Bar Council…” and also clarify “whether her name presently continues on the State Roll of Advocates maintained by the State Bar Council”.
It further asked the council to confirm “whether she had, at any point during her tenure as Chief Minister of West Bengal, given any intimation of voluntary suspension / suspension of practice / cessation from practise”.
The inquiry also sought information on “whether any Certificate of Practice / relevant practice-status record in her favour is available with the State Bar Council, and whether the same is presently valid, active, suspended, or otherwise” and “whether any other record, intimation, communication, order, or entry exists in relation to her entitlement to practise during or after her tenure as Chief Minister”.
The BCI additionally instructed the state Bar Council “to ensure that the information furnished is based strictly on contemporaneous official records … including the State Roll, enrolment register, Certificate of Practice records, inward / receipt registers, suspension or cessation of practice records, resumption records, and any related file notings or orders”.
It also directed that “certified copies of all such records be supplied, duly authenticated by the Secretary of the State Bar Council, with page numbers, register references, dates of entries, inward diary numbers, if any, and the present custody details of the original records.”
The development has triggered a procedural review within legal circles regarding eligibility norms governing appearances before constitutional courts.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment