# ENROLMENT OF MUKHTARS AS ADVOCATES - **Citation:** C.L. No. 36/VII-f-187 - **Court:** Allahabad High Court - **Decided:** 1969-06-01 - **Case number:** C.L. No. 36/VII-f-187 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/enrolment-of-mukhtars-as-advocates-163978 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 515 CHAPTER - XIII LEGAL PRACTITIONERS 1. ENROLMENT OF MUKHTARS AS ADVOCATES C.L. No. 36/VII-f-187 dated 4th May, 1965 According to sections, 24 and 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed by the State Bar Council under section 24 of the said Act a Mukhtar should not ordinarily be certified to be fit for enrolment as an Advocate. In extraordinary cases, however, where the District Judge is satisfied that by reason of special ability, command on the relevant language and knowledge of the law a particular person is capable of ably conducting cases even in the High Court and the Supreme Court, he may give the necessary certificate while sending the application to the State Bar Council. C.L. No. 4/25f Admn. (D) dated 11th January, 1979 It invites attention to section 55 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every pleader or vakil practicing as such immediately before the date on which Chapter IV of the Act (which deals with rights to practice and came into force on June 1, 1969) comes into force, by virtue of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, if he does not elect to be, or is not qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 shall, notwithstanding the repeal of the relevant provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 continue to enjoy the same rights as respects practice in any court or before any authority or person and shall be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the same authority which be enjoyed or, as the case may be, to which he was subject immediately before the said date. In view of the above provision a pleader or a vakil, who was not practicing immediately before the commencement of Chapter IV of the Advocates Act, 1961 will not be entitled to practice as a pleader or a vakil thereafter. 2. MISCONDUCT G.L. No. 22 dated 18th June, 1930 (i) Legal Practitioner not to absent himself from court The letters noted in the bloc invites attention to a Resolution of the High Court, dated 17th June, 1930, pointing out that a member of the legal profession is guilty of an unprofessional act if he breaks his contract with his client and does not appear in court on any day as a protest against certain political or administrative action of the Government, the appropriate punishment for which is, at the least, suspension from practice for a considerable period. If any lawyer breaks his contract with his client and fails to present himself in court because he disapproves of some action of the Government or for any other allied irrelevant and improper reason, such lawyer will be called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from the roll or suspended from practice. 516 G.L. No. 16/67-7 dated 5th April, 1939 All judicial officers are requested to inform the High Court of any instance of this species of professional misconduct for appropriate action. There have been occasions where individual lawyers or bar association have decided to boycott a court or a particular presiding officer on account of some grievance real or alleged. The principle set forth in the Resolution indicated above also apply to a boycott of this nature and any instance of this species of professional misconduct will lead to disciplinary action against those concerned. C. L. No.72/2007Admin (G): Dated: 13.12.2007. The incidents of strike or boycotts of courts by the lawyers have remained unabated despite a number of Circular letters having been issued in the past by the Hon'ble Court directing the judicial officers to continue to work on dias even if there is a call of strike. Viewing this problem with seriousness in a bid to put a check on this trend the Hon'ble Court has desired that a copy of judgment passed in a case wherein the learned counsel did not appear before court without justifiable cause and the court proceeded to pronounce the judgment recording it's finding, may be forwarded to the Bar Council of U.P. for appropriate action against the defaulting counsel treating his conduct to fall in the category of misconduct Therefore, I am directed to request you that in all such cases where the the presiding officer is of the view that the absence of the counsel in a particular case is deliberate with a view to obstructing the dispensation of justice and he proceeds to decide the case recording a finding in the judgment to that effect, treating such act of the counsel to be misconduct, a copy of the judgment may be sent to the Bar Counsel of U.P. for necessary action against the concerned counsel. I am, further to add that kindly bring the contents of this Circular Letter to the notice of all the Judicial Officers working under your administrative control for strict compliance. (ii) Conviction of Legal practitioners to be reported G.L. no. 78/67-8 dated 3rd September, 1936 When any advocate, pleader or mukhtar is convicted of any criminal offence, the court concerned shall forthwith and without delay report the fact to the High Court, without reference to the question whether an appeal has or has not been filed. A copy of the judgment delivered in the case shall be forwarded with the report. If an appeal is filed, that fact shall be reported to the High Court immediately and when the judgment in appeal is delivered, a copy of it shall also be forwarded. (iii) Certifying honorarium as fees G.L. No. 25/67-5 dated 7th October, 1944 It is not open to a counsel who receives an annual honorarium or retainer to certify as fees in a case either the whole or any part of that retainer and if he does, so it will amount to an act of professional misconduct.