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 16 Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Public Employment



       
Article 16 Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Public Employment








Equality of Opportunity in matters of Public Employment

Art. 16 of the Indian Constitution lay down the provisions for the equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Similar to that of art.15, this article is also available only to the citizens of India. Art. 16 (1) is a general provision which states that State shall provide equal opportunities to all the citizens in matters of employment or appointment under any office of the State. The state can though make reasonable classification but any arbitrariness on the behalf of the state for opportunity in public employment shall be construed as violation of art.14&16 of the Constitution.  

Art. 16 (2) provides that the state shall not discriminate any of the citizen in the matters of public employment on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, decent, place or birth or resident or any of them. It does not allow categorization of the citizens for the purpose of employment except for the cause mentioned under clause (3) & (5) of the article. 


The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,that providing an employment on the ground of descent is a discrimination within the meaning of art. 16 (2) of the Indian Constitution and therefore held Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1965 void. 

This article though preaches equality in matters of public employment but art. 16 (3) does not restrict the state in making any criteria for providing such service matters to a particular class or classes in public employment or appointments. This provision of art.16 is also considered to be an enabling proving for the welfare of a particular class of the society.  The court in the light of above provision has observed in that the State can though make such special provision in respect of residence in its entire state but cannot restrict to a particular zone or area of the State

Art. 16 (4) provides for the enabling provisions for the backward classes in the public employment or appointment either by Central government or State Government. This provision has been brought by 81st Constitution Amendment Act, 2000 with an intention to provide opportunities of employment or appointment to those who are not adequately represented in the public employment. The Hon’ble Supreme court has observed this power of State for making any enabling provision for backward classes as discretionary

Further, the provisions of art. 16 (4) have been extended to 16 (4A) wherein such rule of reservation for SC/STs shall also be made applicable in promotions along with employments and appointments. These provisions are not mandatory and are upon the discretionary power on the State to make any enabling provisions under these clauses. 

Moreover, art. 16 (4B) lays down that the State is enabled to carry the unfilled vacancies of the reservation to the subsequent years. It also states that these vacancies shall be treated as a different category and not under 16 (4) or (4A). The cap limit of 50% reservation by the Supreme Court shall not be applicable in unfilled vacancies. 

Art. 16 (5) of the Indian Constitution states that wherein any law provides that the incumbent of an office of a religious institution shall be performed by such person who belongs to that particular religious denomination is not discriminatory of Art. 16 (2). 

Art. 16(6) have been inserted by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment act, 2019 with an view of providing opportunity of employment and appointment in public matters to the economically weaker sections of the society. This reservation shall be provided 10% apart from that provided under art. 16 (4) of the Constitution. 

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