Chief Justice of India (CJI), NV Ramana is yet to give his approval to the latest amendments introduced by the Bar Council of India to the BCI Rules. .This was informed by the counsel for the BCI, Advocate Rajit, in a case before the Kerala High Court challenging the Constitutional validity of the amendments. (Rajesh Vijayan Vs Bar Council of India).Single-judge Justice PB Suresh Kumar recorded the submission of the standing counsel for BCI that the impugned rules have not come into effect and confirmed that it is still pending approval from CJI as required under proviso to Section 49(1) of the Advocates Act. .According to proviso to Section 49(1) of the Advocates Act, approval of the CJI is necessary before amendments to the Rules, in this case regarding the conduct of advocates, can come into force. .The new amendments with the addition of Section V (‘Duties towards Society and Bar’) and Section V-A (‘Code of conduct and disqualification for members of Bar Councils’) to Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules amendments had already been notified in the official gazette on June 25,2021. .Criticising Bar Council decision, motivated comment against judges ground for disqualification of lawyers: BCI amends Rules .The amendments had caused quite a stir since as per the same, a lawyer making any statement which is indecent or derogatory, defamatory, motivated, malicious or mischievous against any court, judge, State Bar Council or the BCI, can be a ground for suspension or cancellation of licence to practice law.The amendments further said that criticising or attacking any decision of any State Bar Council or Bar Council of India on public domain will also amount to "misconduct", which could attract disqualification or suspension..Kerala Bar Council member moves Kerala High Court challenging new BCI rules for violating right to free speech and expression of lawyers.A member of Bar Council of Kerala, Rajesh Vijayan had challenged the same before Kerala High Court as violative of freedom of speech and expression. .Advocate Santhosh Mathew, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the newly added rules BCI Rules are unconstitutional since they are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), and 21 of the Constitution of India.Furthermore, it is in contravention of Supreme Court decisions that have laid down the legally permissible restrictions on free speech and expression, he added.Pertinently, he submitted that there is currently a lot of uncertainty on whether the new rules have even come into effect as BCI has failed to notify whether the statutorily mandated requirement to get approval from CJI has been fulfilled..Recording the submission of the BCI counsel that the rules are still pending the required approval and hence have not come in force, Justice Kumar stated that the case will be heard when moved again.