Advertisement of Advocates is allowed to the extent....

Advertisement of Advocates 30-04-2008 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 21, Rouse AvenueInstitutional Area New Delhi -110 002 STBC( Cir.)No. 7/2008                                                           Dated : 30.4.2008 From Shri S.Radhakrishnan, Secretary, Bar Council of IndiaNew Delhi To: Secretaries of all the State Bar Councils Sub: Amendment to Rule 36, in Section IV, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules regarding advertisement by Advocates. Sirs, Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 24th March , 2008 amended the above rule by adding the following proviso RESOLUTION NO. 50/2008 "RESOLVED that the following amendment of Rule 36 in Section IV, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules by incorporating a proviso in terms of resolution passed by the Joint Consultative Conference be and is hereby approved." "PROVIDED that this Rule will not stand in the way of advocates furnishing website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India. Any additional other input in the particulars than approved by the Bar Council of India will be deemed to be violation of Rule 36 and such advocates are liable to be proceeded with misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961" 1. Name 2. Address Telephone Numbers E-mail id 3 (a) Enrolment Number (b) Date of Enrolment ( c) Name of State Bar Council where originally enrolled (d) Name of State Bar Council on whose roll name stands currently _ (e) Name of the Bar Association of which the Advocate is Member 4. Professional and Academic Qualifications 5. Areas of Practice ( Eg. Civil Criminal Taxation, Labour, etc.) (NAME & SIGNATURE) Declaration I hereby declare that the information given is true. (NAME & SIGNATURE)" The above Amendment has been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India as provided for under proviso to Section 49 (1 ) (j ) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Yours faithfully Sd/- (S. Radhakrishnan) Secretary

Sovereign Immunity in Democracy: A Lokpal Perspective

Dear Friends,

We are discussing about putting PMO and CJI under LOKPAL scanner for last few months. I believe that;

1. Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Member of Parliament, etc. enjoys Sovereign Immunity (Art.75(2) of constitution of India protect from the legal prosecution in any courts to the PM and Council of Minister from anything which is advice to the President. Secondly Art. 105 give protection to the Member of Parliament which is done in the parliamentary proceedings. And thirdly Art.361 protects the President and Governors of any State in India.) For their acts done in OFFICIAL CAPASITY. One cannot sue Mr. PM or any MLA or any of their advisors for any political decision or a strategic decision. One cannot sue PM for relationship with foreign states, one cannot sue MLA for damages for loophole in any law, and one cannot sue the lower judge whose decision has been reversed by the appellate court. Because such decisions are taken by these persons while discharging functions of the CHAIR. But these persons can surely be sued for wrongs done in their personal capacity. There is no such IMMUNITY if the wrong has done in their personal capacity. Judges can be sued if they have not taken the decision in good faith but on corrupt practices. Even any MLA or MoP can sued for corrupt practices.
2. Official Capacity means the decisions taken in chair for discharging the duties assigned to the chair; whereas personal capacity means acts done purporting benefits, interests of the person himself.
3. Problems occur when a person in chair while discharging its duties, undertake certain acts, decisions which are favorable to ‘the person’ in chair and not to ‘the chair’. Such conflict of interest is known as the CORRUPTION.
4. In short, whether such act causing corruption has been done in official capacity (to discharge functions of the Chair) or in personal capacity? (to extract benefits for self) How can a decision of taking bribe be political or strategic decision! How can one say that such decision is taken while discharging functions of the CONSTITUTIONAL CHAIR!! This is nothing but a act done in personal capacity.... (Whether the money or benefits derived by corrupt practices are going to Government Treasury for naming it as Decision taken in Official Capacity??? )

          I think the acts causing corruption are performed just sitting in chair but actually in personal capacity only. Hence any corruption charges against PM are against the person sitting in chair of PM and not against the Chair of PM itself. Thus, countering allegations against corruption, no one can take defense of sovereign immunity. We have example of Hon’ble Balkrishnan, (retired CJI) who is under scanner for corruption charges and no one can guarantee about the honesty of the person acting as PM. It is well said that "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"

        The concept of sovereign immunity has evolved from the ancient legal maxim “King Cannot Do Any Wrong”. If we are following the same term blindly after hundreds of years then what are the benefits of DEMOCRACY??

        In short I believe that definition of Public Servant in Section 2 (12) of Proposed Jan Lokpal Bill (Anna's Bill) will NOT water down the powers of sovereign PM or Parliament or Judiciary…...