Topic

Advocates Act 1961

5 articlesLatest August 2026
Section 17 of Maintenance Act Ultra Vires of Section 30 Advocates Act - Senior Citizens Entitled to Legal Representation before Maintenance Tribunal : Calcutta HC
Case Law Analysis
|Calcutta High Court

Section 17 of Maintenance Act Ultra Vires of Section 30 Advocates Act - Senior Citizens Entitled to Legal Representation before Maintenance Tribunal : Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court ruled that Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 exceeds the scope of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, thereby affirming the right of senior citizens to be represented by a chosen advocate before the Maintenance Tribunal. This ensures tribunals cannot deny legal counsel, strengthening procedural safeguards for elderly litigants.

RBI Caution List Cannot Include Advocates for Professional Negligence | SC Upholds Self-Regulation Under Advocates Act 1961 : SC
Case Law Analysis
|Supreme Court of India

RBI Caution List Cannot Include Advocates for Professional Negligence | SC Upholds Self-Regulation Under Advocates Act 1961 : SC

Supreme Court rules that RBI's Caution List cannot be used to blacklist advocates for professional negligence, reinforcing the Bar Council of India's exclusive disciplinary authority under the Advocates Act 1961. The judgment mandates institutional reforms, including Continuing Legal Education, to ensure accountability in the legal profession.

Advocates Act 1961 | Absolute Right to Change Counsel Without NOC from Previous Advocate: Karnataka HC
Case Law Analysis
|Karnataka High Court

Advocates Act 1961 | Absolute Right to Change Counsel Without NOC from Previous Advocate: Karnataka HC

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that a litigant’s right to change counsel is absolute under the Advocates Act, 1961, and does not require a No Objection Certificate from the previous advocate. The ruling underscores professional ethics and the unconditional nature of the right to legal representation, ensuring litigants are not unduly restricted in choosing their counsel.

Rule 3-A Punjab & Haryana HC Rules | Non-Local Advocates Must File Writ Petitions With Local Co-Counsel or Face Costs : Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Law Analysis
|Punjab and Haryana High Court

Rule 3-A Punjab & Haryana HC Rules | Non-Local Advocates Must File Writ Petitions With Local Co-Counsel or Face Costs : Punjab & Haryana HC

Punjab & Haryana High Court dismisses a writ petition filed solely by Delhi-based advocates, enforcing Rule 3-A that mandates local co-counsel for non-local advocates. The court imposed ₹50,000 costs for violating procedural compliance, reinforcing strict adherence to advocate practice rules under the Advocates Act 1961.