Kullu lawyers protest against Advocates Amendment Bill

Kullu district court advocates staged a protest against the Advocate Amendment Bill, demanding its withdrawal. The advocates organised a rally and submitted a memorandum to the Central government through the Deputy Commissioner (DC), voicing strong opposition to the proposed changes. They raised concerns about the Bill’s impact on their professional rights and independence, warning that it could alter the fundamental ethics of the legal profession.

During the protest, prominent lawyers delivered speeches emphasising the importance of protecting advocates’ autonomy. Senior lawyer Naresh Kumar Sood argued that holding an advocate responsible for losing a case was inappropriate. “We are self-employed and not dependent on the government,” he stated. He criticised the bill for granting the Centre the power to issue binding directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI), which could, in turn, direct State Bar Councils. According to him, this provision would disrupt the profession’s independence.

District Kullu Bar Council president Teja Thakur pointed out that the amendment to Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, would allow the Central Government to nominate three members to the BCI, along with two women members co-opted by the council. He deemed this provision unjustified, as it would reduce the autonomy of legal practitioners.

Former Kullu Bar Council president Sanjay Thakur highlighted the addition of Section 35-A, which prohibits advocates from boycotting court proceedings. He explained, “As per Section 35A(1), any call for boycott or obstruction of court activities will be deemed misconduct, leading to disciplinary action.” He warned that this provision could hinder lawyers from protesting issues affecting the poor or their own fraternity.

The primary concern driving the nationwide protests is the Bill’s potential to erode the legal profession’s independence. Lawyers argue that the proposed amendments would increase bureaucratic control over advocates, disrupting the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legal community. The bill’s restrictions on professional freedoms, particularly regarding representation rights, have further fueled outrage.

Advocates across the country are urging the government to reconsider the proposed amendments and engage in meaningful discussions with legal professionals. They stress that any reforms must align with the best interests of justice and uphold the independence of the legal community.