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
Post a Comment

Defamation Case Against Delhi CM Atishi Marlena, Arvind Kejriwal Set for Arguments on Charge

Defamation Case Against Delhi CM Atishi Marlena, 

Arvind Kejriwal Set for Arguments on Charge



In a significant development, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has scheduled the hearing of a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena, former CM Arvind Kejriwal, and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders for October 3, 2024. The case, filed by BJP leader Rajeev Babbar in 2020, accuses the AAP leaders of making defamatory statements against the BJP, allegedly damaging the party’s reputation.


Background of the Defamation Case


The defamation case was initiated by Rajeev Babbar, a BJP leader from Delhi, who alleged that Arvind Kejriwal, Atishi Marlena, and other senior AAP leaders falsely accused the BJP of orchestrating the removal of 30 lakh names from the Delhi electoral rolls. These voters, Babbar contended, were primarily from the Baniya, Muslim, and Poorvanchali communities. The accusations, made during the run-up to the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, sought to paint the BJP as responsible for voter suppression, according to the complaint.


Babbar’s defamation suit argues that the voters' list is under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India (ECI), not any political party. He claims the statements made by the AAP leaders were aimed at maligning the BJP's image and damaging its credibility among key voter groups, causing "irreparable harm" to the party’s reputation.


Court Proceedings and Previous Orders


In February 2020, the Delhi High Court had stayed the trial court proceedings, providing interim relief to Arvind Kejriwal and the other AAP leaders. The AAP leaders had challenged the defamation case on the grounds that the complaint was vague and did not specifically mention the "person aggrieved," a crucial element in defamation complaints.


However, in a recent ruling, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of the Delhi High Court dismissed the AAP leaders’ appeal, paving the way for the trial court to proceed with the case. The High Court emphasized the right of citizens to truthful and accurate information, criticizing the political mudslinging often seen in electoral politics. Justice Mendiratta made it clear that defamatory statements aimed at tarnishing the image of political parties for undue political advantage would not be tolerated.


Arguments on Charge Scheduled for October 3


The case is now set for arguments on charge on October 3, 2024, where the accused leaders, including Atishi Marlena, Arvind Kejriwal, Sushil Kumar Gupta, and Manoj Kumar, are expected to appear before the court. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Tanya Bamniyal has issued a notice to the respondents, asking for their presence and allowing the case to proceed.


The Delhi High Court has vacated its interim order that stayed the trial court proceedings, meaning the summons issued to the AAP leaders by the trial court are now in effect.


BJP’s Allegations and AAP’s Defense


Babbar’s defamation suit contends that the allegations made by AAP were false and designed to vilify the BJP, particularly with the claim that the party manipulated the voters' list to exclude key communities that were likely to vote against them. The voters’ list, Babbar maintained, is strictly the domain of the Election Commission, and the BJP had no role in altering it.


Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, on the other hand, have maintained that the defamation suit is politically motivated and intended to stifle political criticism. They have argued that the complaint lacks specific details and does not establish the necessary elements of a defamation case.


Previous Defamation Cases Against AAP Leaders


This isn’t the first time Atishi Marlena or other AAP leaders have faced defamation charges. Earlier in July 2024, Atishi was granted bail by the Rouse Avenue Court in a separate defamation case filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor over allegations of poaching AAP legislators. Defamation suits have become a recurring legal battle for AAP, which has often been accused by political opponents of using inflammatory rhetoric.


Legal Implications and Next Steps


The upcoming hearing will be crucial in determining whether there is sufficient ground to frame charges against Kejriwal, Atishi, and other AAP leaders. If the trial court decides to move forward with framing charges, the case could have significant political and legal consequences for AAP, especially as the party prepares for upcoming electoral challenges.


The defamation case also highlights the growing trend of using legal mechanisms to address political disputes, with courts increasingly playing a role in settling the line between free speech and defamation in the political arena.


Conclusion


The defamation case against Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena is a critical legal test for the Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders, as they navigate both political and judicial challenges. The court’s final decision could have far-reaching implications for political discourse in India, especially in the context of the right to free speech and the responsibility to avoid defamatory claims.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Image
 Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18 INTRODUCTION The idea of equality referenced under Article 14 to Article 18 upgrades a more extensive idea and a more extensive part of the examination as the subject of equity itself shapes a vital and powerful idea in itself. The idea of fairness overwhelms the exceptionally two significant ideas of equivalent security of law and equity under the steady gaze of the law. Likewise, the idea of uniformity wins in a wide range of establishments and accommodates equivalent freedoms for people with the abrogation of unapproachable and nullification of titles. The idea is a more extensive methodology as it is significant for society to look to each individual with a similar methodology regardless of his sexual orientation, rank, and religion. The law is visually impaired and is equivalent for each individual as it says that balance wins for each individual and each individual has the option to be secured by the law. Evolution  The fundamenta
Read more

Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren

Image
Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren Cognizance Taken by PMLA Court A Special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Ranchi has taken cognizance of a prosecution complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against Hemant Soren, the former Chief Minister of Jharkhand and leader of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). The complaint, comprising 5,500 pages, pertains to a money laundering case related to a land 'scam'. The central probe agency has also attached 8.5 acres of land in connection with the case. Detention and Extended Custody Hemant Soren, who was arrested on January 31, is currently detained at the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Hotwar, Ranchi. His judicial custody was extended till April 4 by the PMLA court on March 21. Additionally, on February 29, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a petition filed by Soren seeking permission to attend the budget session of the state assembly. Allegations by the Enforcement Directorat
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth." In article 14 there two  approaches which include negative
Read more