Latest news with #BarCouncils
Business Recorder
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Practitioners, Bar Councils (Amendment) Bill: Senate body passes significant amendments
ISLAMABAD: The Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice, unanimously, passed significant amendments to the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (Amendment) Bill, 2025, aimed at strengthening the credibility, transparency, and operational timelines of bar councils across Pakistan. The parliamentary panel met with Farooq Hamid Naek in the chair, here on Thursday. After a detailed clause-by-clause review, the committee, unanimously, approved the bill with amendments. Under the new provisions, the elections for Bar Councils will now mandatorily be held on the first Saturday of November, and in no case beyond the second Saturday of November. This change institutionalises predictability and uniformity in the electoral process across all provincial and federal bar councils. The bill also introduces stricter eligibility requirements for candidates contesting Bar Council elections. After a thorough discussion between 7 and 10 years it was decided that a candidate must be enrolled as an advocate of the High Court for not less than 10 years. The candidate must have successfully handled at least 30 individual cases. Disqualification of membership will be upon individuals convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, or sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more (unless released at least five years ago), will be disqualified from contesting. Another major development under the amendment is the allocation of Bar Council seats for the newly-merged districts into the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These seats will be included in the group of districts as specified under Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 5 of the Act, ensuring their rightful representation. Bar Councils play a pivotal role in upholding constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, it is imperative to introduce a robust and transparent mechanism to ensure that only candidates with the requisite expertise and experience hold office in these prestigious bodies. According to statement of objects and reasons of the bill the Bar Councils play a pivotal role in upholding constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, it would be judicious to introduce a robust mechanism and transparent requirements for becoming office holders of Bar Councils. These amendments would ensure that candidates possess the requisite expertise and experience to fulfill these critical responsibilities effectively. In addition, this amendment provides the share of seats for newly-merged districts into the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as prescribed in the group of Districts given in the Schedule made under Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 5 of the Act. Other constitutional amendment bills on the agenda were deferred. The meeting was also attended by senators, Syed Ali Zafar, Ahad Khan Cheema, Abdul Qadir, and Khalil Tahir. Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazir Tarar, along with chairmen of various Bar Councils and other key legal stakeholders, were also present. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The Print
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Bombay HC has left women advocates without PoSH shield. We must extend the Act to Bar Councils
The Court noted that victims of sexual harassment could instead use the avenue of filing a complaint of misconduct under the Advocates Act . The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded that no employer-employee relationship exists between advocates and Bar Councils. That nexus is the linchpin of the PoSH Act. The Act's architecture presupposes an employer capable of setting up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), enforcing penalties, and supervising compliance. Since Bar Councils are not 'employers' and advocates are not 'employees', the judges held, PoSH's machinery simply has nothing to attach itself to. Hence, there is no obligation to set up ICCs at state or national Bar Councils. The Bombay High Court recently rejected a petition asking it to order the Maharashtra-Goa Bar Council and the Bar Council of India to set up permanent committees for handling sexual harassment complaints under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. Every woman advocate in India is now outside the PoSH net. Gap in India's sexual harassment law The Bombay High Court order reopens the faultline that has shadowed the PoSH Act since its birth. The Act traces back to the Vishaka guidelines rooted in the 1992 gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a government field worker who was attacked by dominant-caste men while campaigning against child marriage. Although the Supreme Court invoked constitutional guarantees to establish guidelines on redressing sexual harassment at work, it confined those safeguards to a model that required a formal employer. When Parliament finally codified PoSH in 2013, that structure was embedded in the Act. The duty to constitute ICCs, train staff and committee members, and create a safe working environment was placed wholly on an identifiable employer. The Bombay High Court Bench relied squarely on that design architecture to reject the current plea. Where the PoSH Act ends, only the penal code is left standing. But criminal prosecution is a blunt, punishing tool. All the obstacles the PoSH inquiry was designed to soften resurface in a criminal courtroom. Evidence of sexual harassment is hard to collect, the standard of proof is exacting, and endless adjournments prolong the trauma for the complainants. The conviction rate in cases of crimes against women is just 26 per cent, and trials for more than 90 per cent of cases are pending. When justice drags on for years, the process becomes the punishment. Also read: Liberals don't want Muslim women to demand rights in the Hindutva era. There's no right time Control without responsibility It is true that Bar Councils do not control advocates' terms of employment in the way that traditional employers do. However, merely redirecting women advocates facing sexual harassment from fellow advocates, staff, or even Bar Council members to the Advocates Act is completely unsatisfactory. ICCs and local committees under the PoSH Act were designed for this kind of dispute. Their members are trained in gender-sensitive procedures, grasp the evidentiary patterns typical of harassment, and can craft remedial as well as punitive directions. None of these safeguards would be present in a general misconduct hearing under the Advocates Act. The composition of Bar Councils compounds the issue. Women occupy only 2 per cent of elected seats in state Bar Councils. Senior male lawyers dominate deliberations in these councils, reflecting the 'old boys clubs' tag. Expecting such bodies to investigate sexual misconduct claims with neutrality, confidentiality, and survivor-centred empathy is unrealistic. When a special forum and process are created, the relief and platform they offer must be accessible to everyone facing complaints of such nature. That is why the PoSH Act should be reimagined as a forum for civil redress of sexual harassment more generally. An ICC should be constituted in every institution or organised profession, regardless of whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The Act should extend to covering the ambit of Bar Councils as well. The district-level local complaints committees must have explicit jurisdiction to hear such cases from women advocates. Right now, their remit is also restricted by the employment nexus. The legal profession must start taking harassment, especially sexual harassment, seriously. The Australian Law Council has developed a National Model Framework Addressing Sexual Harassment, and the UK's Solicitors Regulation Authority has rules for dealing with sexual misconduct allegations. It is high time India adopted a similarly systematic response. Such a move would embolden women to remain within the sphere of advocacy—currently, only 15 per cent of practising advocates are women. It would also create a clear path to justice in incidents like last month's Kerala case, where a woman junior advocate alleged that her senior had assaulted her multiple times. If the Bar can discipline lawyers for missing gowns, it can and must police harassment in its own corridors. The law should not look the other way. Jwalika Balaji is a lawyer and Research Fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Her X handle is @JwalikaBalaji. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
India Today
08-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Lawyers not employees: Court says POSH Act not applicable for Bar Council staff
The Bombay High Court on Monday clarified that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) are not obligated to form Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (POSH Act) as they do not have an employer-employee relationship with practising bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, explained that the POSH Act is applicable only in contexts where there is a clear employer-employee relationship. They concluded that because bar councils do not employ the advocates who practice under them, the Act does not apply to complaints lodged against fellow response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the "UNS Women Legal Association," the bench emphasised that the Advocates Act still provides remedies for professional misconduct, including harassment. "Section 35 of the Advocates Act provides action against any kind of professional or other misconduct by lawyers. This is a remedy available for lady lawyers to file complaints against any kind of harassment which may amount to professional or other misconduct," the bench PIL sought the creation of permanent grievance redressal mechanisms specifically for sexual harassment complaints against lawyers. However, the court's ruling indicates that existing legal frameworks under the Advocates Act should suffice for addressing such Senior Advocate Milind Sathe and Advocate Shekhar Jagtap, representing BCMG and BCI respectively, pointed out that both councils already have ICCs for their own employees. They reiterated the absence of an employer-employee relationship with practising advocates as a reason for the inapplicability of the POSH court's decision highlights the delineation between regulatory bodies like Bar Councils and actual employment contexts. While Bar Councils regulate the profession, they do not engage lawyers in an employment capacity, thus exempting them from certain legal obligations under workplace harassment laws.- EndsTune InMust Watch
