Gujarat High Court demands system to gauge lawyers’ competency

Source: dnaindia.com

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Bar Council of Gujarat (BCG) to come up with a mechanism for ascertaining the competency of lawyers in conducting cases before the court. The direction came from the division bench of Acting Chief Justice AS Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav, which clarified that the mechanism need not be penal in nature, but should be regulatory.

Notably, the court was hearing a suo motu PIL instituted by the high court administration after a judgment delivered by the single-judge bench of Justice Bela Trivedi against a lawyer Girish Das for the latter’s failure to conduct his matter properly before her court. Justice Trivedi had directed the registry to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice as a PIL.

The PIL seeks a two-fold solution to the problem of lack of competency of lawyers—one is to frame rules in this regard and the second is to organise regular training for lawyers on how to conduct matters, and the ethics and etiquette they need to follow in the courtroom.

During the hearing on Tuesday, counsel for BCG Mitul Shelat informed the court that BCI had framed rules regarding conduct and etiquette of lawyers. However, no rules are in place so far as to judge the competency of lawyers, he added. Shelat also submitted that there are three authorities which can frame rules regarding advocates – the central government, BCI, and respective high courts of states.

Following Shelat’s submissions, the court ordered the BCI and BCG to come up with a mechanism for ascertaining the competency of lawyers. The court, thereafter, posted the matter for further hearing on July 24.

As per the case details, Justice Trivedi in her judgment pronounced on January 11 had imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on advocate Girish Das for his failure to conduct the case of his clients and entering into useless arguments despite being issued several warnings. The judgment provides that although the case filed by Das was related to a notice issued under the Town Planning Act, yet Das kept on arguing on the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. It also provides that Das was completely ignorant about the facts of the case, as well as the laws applicable to it.

Justice Trivedi had also remarked in the judgment: “When the Court expressed orally that it was not inclined to entertain the petition and would dismiss with cost to be paid by him and not by the petitioners, he had the audacity to say that this was not the final court and that he would approach the Supreme Court”.