Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Advocates Act, 1961

7 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

GAURAV KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2024 INSC 55830 July 2024Disposed off

Gaurav Kumar filed a writ petition challenging the fees levied by State Bar Councils (SBCs) at the time of enrolment, alleging that the amounts far exceed the Rs. 750 (general) and Rs. 125 (SC/ST) prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that additional miscellaneous fees are being made a conditio

BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOAversusRAJIV NARESHCHANDRA NARULA & ORS.

2025 INSC 114724 September 2025Disposed off

The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa referred a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar against advocate Rajiv Narula to its Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, alleging professional misconduct for identifying a plaintiff in consent terms of a civil suit. The Supreme Court examined whether di

JITENDER @ KALLAversusSTATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

2025 INSC 24920 February 2025Disposed off

The appellant, convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty years without remission, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court but suppressed the fixed‑term nature of his sentence, leading the Court to initially treat the case as a simple life sentence. The SLP was drafted by senior advocate Rishi Malhot

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 36419 March 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association filed miscellaneous applications seeking clarification and modification of the directions in paragraph 42 of a September 2024 judgment that limited the marking of advocates’ appearances. They argued that the directions prejudice adv

ORISSA HIGH COURT AND OTHERSversusBANSHIDHAR BAUG AND OTHERS ETC.

2025 INSC 83914 July 2025Disposed off

The Orissa High Court, on its administrative side, challenged its own earlier order that had struck down Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules allowing suo motu designation of Senior Advocates. The petitioners argued that the rule was consistent with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act and the Supreme Court’s Indira Jaising judgm

JITENDER @ KALLAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

2025 INSC 66713 May 2025Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the procedure for designating Senior Advocates after concerns were raised in Jitender @ Kalla regarding the 100‑point assessment and the role of bar members in the Permanent Committee. It considered whether the point‑based system introduced in Indira Jaising I and modified in Indira Jaising I

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search