Practice Paper I

Professional Ethics and Accounting

Practical activities and topics
LLB305/BBAL705
Sr. No. Topic and activity Unit Date
1. Enrollment of Advocates: 1 21/07/2023
Hypothetical Case study:
“Person ‘A’ has applied for enrollment as an advocate before the
State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. He has obtained his
degree in law from a recognized university and has completed age of
21 years. But while doing his LL.B. education, person ‘A’ got involved
in an accident and a case is pending before the Court of Law against
him”. Discuss if person ‘A’ is eligible to enroll as an advocate under
the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961
2. Comparative Analysis: 1 24/07

Compare the BCI's regulatory system with similar bodies in other

countries, highlighting best practices and areas where it can learn
from international experiences.
3. Report writing: 1 28/07
On the topic of “Bar Council Of India Rules For Registration And
Regulation Of Foreign Lawyers Or Foreign Law Firms In India:
Synopsis – Introduction, Background, Rules on recognition of Foreign
Lawyers and Law firms, Reasons, Analysis.
4. ‘Advocate’s towards Court’ 2 04/08/2023
Analyze and answer if an Advocate who is part of the ‘Executive
Committee’, as a member, of Bar Council or Bar Association or any
other institution. Can such advocate appear to plead the case for or
against such institution?
5. Explain the historical development of dresscode of lawyers including 2 07/08/2023
the changes adopted in India post-independence.
6. Whether an Advocate representing a client can take instructions from 2 14/08/2023
the other co-defendant in the same case pending before the court.
Explain the resaons.
7. Case analysis: 2 18/08/2023
a) Suresh Shivarao vs. N.D. Upadhyay
b) N G Dastane vs. Shrikant Shivde
8. Analyse the fiduciary relationship between the advocate and the 2 23/08/2023
client. Explain with the help of case laws.
9. Analyse the provisions related to ‘Advertisement by Advocates’ in 2 28/08/2023
India and comparison with UK and USA.
10. Analyse the section 37 and 38 of the Advocate Act in relation with the 2 04/09/2023
provisions in the Limitation Act, 1963.
11. Case Analsysis: 3 08/09/2023
Cases relating to Advocates Act and Professional Ethics (discussed in –
the class) 29/09/2023
a) Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State Of UP AIR 2011 SC 2275
b) Vijay Singh v. Murarilal AIR 1979 SC 1719 SJ
 Practice Paper I
Professional Ethics and Accounting
c) Chaudhary v. State Of Delhi AIR 1984 SC 618
d)Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan AIR 1983 SC 1012
e) Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union Of India AIR 2003 SC 739
12. Case Analsysis: 4 06/10/2023
Important Cases under the Contempt of Courts Act (discussed in the -
class): 27/10/2023
a) Arundhati Roy v. High court of Judicature at Bombay 2017 SC
b) Pushpaben v.Narandas V Badiani AIR 1979 SC 1536,
c) LD Jaikwal v. State of UP AIR 1984 SC 1734,
d) Charan Lal Sahu v.Union Of India AIR 1988 SC 107,
e) PN Duda v. V P Shiv Shankar AIR 1988 SC 1202

Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of U.P., (Decided on 15.06.2011)

MANU/SC/0702/2011

Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Appellant, an

advocate produced an accused for the purpose of surrender, impersonating
him as 'X' who was wanted in a criminal case - There was some controversy
regarding the genuineness of the person who came to surrender and the
Presiding Officer of the Court accordingly raised certain issues - Appellant
allegedly misbehaved with the said officer in the court and used abusive
language - Pursuant to show cause notice, Appellant though denied
allegations tendered apology by way of an affidavit - High Court however held
the Appellant guilty of committing the contempt and sentenced him to
undergo three months simple imprisonment with alongwith fine - Hence the
present proceedings

Held, being an officer of the court, if any issue had been raised in this regard either by
the Court or opposite counsel, it was the duty of the Appellant to satisfy the Court and
establish the identity of the person concerned. The conduct of the Appellant was in
complete violation and in contravention of the "standard of professional conduct and
etiquette" laid in Section 1 of Chapter 2 (Part-VI) of the Bar Council of India Rules,
which provides that an advocate shall maintain towards the court a respectful attitude
and protect the dignity of the judicial office. He shall use his best efforts to restrain and
 Practice Paper I
Professional Ethics and Accounting

prevent his client from resorting to unfair practices etc. The advocate would conduct
himself with dignity and self respect in the court etc. etc.

There may be a case, where a person is really aggrieved of misbehaviour/conduct or

bias of a judicial officer. He definitely has a right to raise his grievance, but it should be
before the appropriate forum and by resorting to the procedure prescribed for it. Under
no circumstances, such a person can be permitted to become the law unto himself and
proceed in a manner he wishes, for the reason that it would render the very existence
of the system of administration of justice at a stake.

The Appellant instead of choosing to defend himself on merit before the High Court,
merely tendered apology thrice. The principle as well settled states that it is the
seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the contemnor and degree of harm caused to
the administration of justice, which would decisively determine whether the matter
should be tried as a criminal contempt or not.

A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with
his client maligning the reputation of judicial officers merely because his client failed to
secure the desired order from the said officer. An apology cannot be a defence, a
justification, or an appropriate punishment for an act, which is in contempt of court.

In the instant case, the apology was tendered after the Appellant received show cause
notice.

The High Court considered the case elaborately examining every issue microscopically
and held that there was no reason to disbelieve the facts stated by the judicial officer
against the contemnor/Appellant, the facts were acceptable, and it was clearly proved
that the contemnor was guilty of gross criminal contempt. The charges levelled against
the Appellant stood proved. A Judge has to discharge his duty and passes order in the
manner as he thinks fit to the best of his capability under the facts and circumstances
of the case before him. No litigant, far less an advocate, has any right to take the law in
his own hands. The contemnor abused the Judge in most filthy words unworthy of
mouthing by an ordinary person and that is true without any justification for him
ascending the dais during the course of the proceedings and then abusing the judicial
officer in the words "Maaderchod, Bahanchod, High Court Ko Contempt Refer Kar". The
courts certainly cannot be intimidated to seek the favourable orders. The Appellant
intimidated the presiding officer of the court hurling filthiest abuses and lowered the
authority of the Court, which is tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial
 Practice Paper I
Professional Ethics and Accounting

proceedings. The charge, which stood proved against the Appellant, could not be taken
lightly and in such a fact-situation the apology tendered by him, being not bona fide,
was not acceptable.

The Appellant instead of yielding to the court honestly and unconditionally advanced a
well-guarded defence by referring to all the facts that led to the incident. Apology
tendered by the Appellant gives an impression that the same was in the alternative and
not a complete surrender before the law. Such attitude has a direct impact on the
court's independence, dignity and decorum. In order to protect the administration of
public justice, we must take action as his conduct and utterances cannot be ignored or
pardoned. The Appellant had no business to overawe the court. Thus, the apology
tendered by the Appellant was neither sincere nor bona fide and thus, not worth
acceptance. The appeal held to be lacking in merit and was accordingly, dismissed.