Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity

Image
Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from  Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity The Bar Council of India (BCI) has taken decisive action in a sweeping initiative aimed at maintaining the integrity of the legal profession by removing 107 fake advocates  from the Roll of Advocates in Delhi  between 2019 and October 2024. This step comes as part of the BCI's rigorous verification process to ensure that only qualified, genuinely practising advocates remain in the profession, ultimately upholding public trust in the legal system. Strengthened Verification Framework Under Rule 32 This effort falls under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 . The BCI  amended Rule 32 on June 23, 2023 , which empowered the BCI to verify, identify, and systematically remove unqualified and fake advocates from the Roll. The rule amendment has made the process of weeding out non-compliant individuals significantly more efficient. Accordi

Article 15- Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

 

Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Art. 15)

Art.15 lays down the provision in regards to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place or birth. Art. 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution expresses that any resident of the nation will not be separated on the grounds of religion, race, rank, sex, place of birth or any of them. In contrast to, workmanship. 14, this right is simply accessible to the residents of India. Craftsmanship. 15 (1) is considered as an expansion of workmanship. Article 14 as it broadens the overall standard of balance referenced under article 14.

However, the judiciary at various instances has entertained various grounds upon which the state can or cannot discriminate any citizen of the nation. The courts have observed that any classification by the state on the grounds of residence does not cause discrimination against any citizen under art.15 of the Indian Constitution. The court has also entertained various other petitions where selection of candidates above a particular permission by state on the basis of domicile was stated as discrimination within the meaning of art.15(1).

Art.15 (1) specifically states that the discrimination should not be done state whereas art. 15(2) lay down a general provision against discrimination. It states that no citizen shall be restricted on the grounds mentioned under art. 15(1) to access any shops, public restaurants, hotels or place of entertainment or to use well, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resorted maintained wholly or partly by State funds or dedicated for the use of general public. Further, if any section of society claims their exclusive right of such places shall prove to the court that such place is not dedicated to public

Further, art.15 (3) provides the State enabling power to make special provision for the welfare of women and children. This provision is also known as the enabling provision and therefore cannot be considered as discriminatory on the grounds of age or gender under art. 15(1) &15(2).

Art. 15 (4) was inserted in the Indian Constitution through First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951. It is also an enabling provision like art.15 (3) which provides the state power to make special provision for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and shall not be termed discriminatory under this article or art.29(2). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has determined the meaning of socially and educationally backward classes in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.  It was observed that caste alone should be the determining factors in the backwardness of a class or group. Social and economic factors are also relevant factors in the determination of such backwardness. 

Art. 15(5) was inserted by 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005. It provides that state is enabled to make any provisions for the reservation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions including private institutions. This amendment was brought by the legislature to make the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, ineffective. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court in this case that such reservation under art. 15 (5) cannot be provided to SC/ST in private educational institutions.   

Art. 15(6) was inserted by the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 in the Indian Constitution. It enables the state to make provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections other than those mentioned in art. 15(4) & (5). It also enables the state to make any provision for the admission of such section in the aided as well as unaided educational institutions of the State. It also provides that this reservation shall be provided for 10% in addition to the current reservation provided to socially and educationally backward classes. The State cannot be prohibited from making such provisions by the virtue of this article, art. 19(1) (g) or art. 29(2). 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren

Equality Before Law