Breaking: Gujarat HC Adv. Association moves SC seeking recall of directions to amend Advocates Act

In a major development in relation to the controversy surrounding amendments to Advocates Act, the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court seeking intervention in the case of Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh..It was the judgment rendered in the aforementioned case on July 5, 2016, which had set in motion the events eventually leading to a Law Commission Report for amending the Advocates Act, 1961..In the said judgment, the Supreme Court had called for an urgent review of the Advocates Act and had asked the Law Commission to go into all aspects relating to regulation of legal profession. It had also directed the Central government to take appropriate steps in the light of the Law Commission Report and submit an affidavit to the Court..The matter was directed to be put up for further consideration after year. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:.“In view of above, we request the Law Commission of India to go into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in consultation with all concerned at an early date. We hope the Government of India will consider taking further appropriate steps in the light of report of the Law Commission within six months thereafter. The Central Government may file an appropriate affidavit in this regard within one month after expiry of one year..To consider any further direction in the light of developments that may take place, put up the matter for further consideration one month after expiry of the period of one year.”.The GHCAA has assailed these directions contending that the same amount to issuing a Mandamus and will hit the doctrine of separation of powers since the Centre will be forced to amend the Advocates Act due to a judicial order..“In utmost humbleness the Applicant is submitting that direction to the Government of India to Law Commission of India to go into all relevant aspects at an early date and further, the direction to the Government of India to consider taking further steps within a period of six months from the date of filing of the report of the Law Commission of India amounts to being, in effect, a time bound mandamus..It is most humbly submitted that the implementation of the said directions shall blur the lines of separation of power, which is a much celebrated concept for our Constitution. ….It is also respectfully submitted that directing the Central Government to legislate a law through a judicial order and judgment is in stark violation of the doctrine of Separation of Power and therefore, unconstitutional.”.Besides this, the GHCAA has also objected to the manner in which Law Commission implemented the directions of the Supreme Court. It has contended that the Law Commission did not give adequate opportunity to various High Court Advocates Associations, District and Taluka Advocates’ Associations, Advocate Generals of all High Courts and the lawyers in their individual capacity to put forth their views regarding amendments to the Advocates act..“….decision of the Law Commission to review the Act was not widely circulated among the stakeholders viz. all High Court Advocates Associations, District and Taluka Advocates’ Associations, Advocate Generals of all High Courts and the lawyers in their individual capacity. It is most respectfully submitted that the entire amendment bill has been compiled and prepared without giving a proper opportunity to the very stakeholders for whose “benefit” the bill was drafted in the first place..The Applicant most humbly also submits that as it appears, there is no public notice given in newspapers which have wide circulation all over India as also no public notice was given in any one regional newspaper having circulation in a particular State. The state councils were also perhaps informed through emails about the proposal of the Law Commission of India to review the Advocates Act. As a result thereof, it appears that the Law Commission of India has prepared the proposed amendment bill in an undue haste which may be detrimental to the future of our legal fraternity as the livelihoods of many depend on fair rules and the sound working of the judiciary and more importantly, any haste in this matter may also directly detriment the growth of our country which presently enjoys a strong legal backbone to protect the interests of its citizens.”.Speaking to Bar & Bench, GHCAA President Asim Pandya had this to say:.“Though the Law Minister has assured the lawyers that no action will be taken on the Law Commission’s 266th Report, the Centre will have to submit its affidavit in the case when the matter is listed in August. Hence, we believe, it goes against the doctrine of separation of powers.“Besides, the BCI should dissolve its internal Advisory Committee since it comprises only of judges and hence cannot accurately reflect the views of the Bar.” .The GHCAA, in its application, has prayed for a recall of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Mahipal Singh rana’s case..It has also sought for a direction to be issued to the Law Ministry to return the Advocates Amendment Bill, 2017 to the Law Commission of India for reconsideration in consultation with all stakeholders