Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

NANDINI SHARMA AND ANR. versus REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ORS.

Article 145 of the Constitution read with Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Supreme Court to prescribe rules determining who may act or plead before it, including instituting an Advocate on Record system and examinations; the Rules impugned (Order IV rr.1(b), 5, 7(c), Supreme Court Rules, 2013) are not arbitrary or unreasonable and therefore valid; writ petition dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Supreme court rules
  • Advocate on record
  • Advocates act, 1961
  • Article 145 constitution of india
  • Article 14
  • Article 19(1)(g)
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, DEHRADUN THROUGHITS SECRETARY versus ISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) does not entitle advocates to go on strike or boycott courts when such action prejudices litigants and impedes the right to speedy justice under Articles 14 and 21; boycotting courts as conducted in the districts at issue amounts to contempt and the High Court's directions directing withdrawal of strike calls and disciplinary action by Bar Councils were justified; accordingly the SLP was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Right to strike
  • Advocates' strikes and boycotts
  • Speedy justice
  • Bar councils' disciplinary powers
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

AJAYINDER SANGWAN AND ORS. versus K. K. MOHAN

The election schedule as finalized by the Bar Council of India is just and proper. No case is made out to initiate contempt proceedings as there is no willful disobedience of Supreme Court orders.

Source excerpt

  • Bar council of india elections
  • Willful disobedience
  • Contempt proceedings
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

INDIRA JAISING versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

Order recalling earlier reservation and setting matter down for final hearing, along with the transferred writ petition challenging constitutional validity of ss.16 and 23(5) of Advocates Act, as issues are closely linked and require joint adjudication for procedural fairness.

Source excerpt

  • Designation of senior advocates
  • Constitutional validity of advocates act sections 16 and 23(5)
  • Procedural fairness in hearing
Read case analysis
Public interest litigation

DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Petitions styled as Public Interest Litigation that are motivated by private interest, blackmail, or for personal gain, and lacking genuine public interest must be dismissed with exemplary costs and prevented from clogging courts and wasting judicial time.

Source excerpt

  • Abuse of pil
  • Exemplary costs
  • Role of judiciary in pil
  • Regulation of legal profession
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

PRAVIN C. SHAH versus K.A. MOHD. ALI AND ANR.

An advocate found guilty of contempt of court cannot appear, act, or plead in any court unless he purges himself of the contempt, which requires a genuine and sincere apology accepted by the court, not merely payment of penalty or undergoing punishment. Bar Council disciplinary jurisdiction does not override court rules regulating proceedings within the court room.

Source excerpt

  • Advocate's right to appear after contempt
  • Purging of contempt
  • Bar council disciplinary jurisdiction
  • Court regulation of proceedings
  • Apology in contempt proceedings
Read case analysis
Legal profession regulation

PANDURANG DATTATREYA KHANDEKAR versus THE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA BOMBAY & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the evidence adduced against the appellant and Agavane fell short of the required proof to establish professional misconduct under Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as the necessary higher standard of proof was not met despite circumstances raising suspicion. Therefore, the finding of guilt by the Disciplinary Committee was set aside and proceedings were dropped.

Source excerpt

  • Professional misconduct of advocates
  • Standards of proof in disciplinary proceedings
  • Legal ethics
Read case analysis
Professional misconduct

J BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA versus M. V. DABHOLKAR ETC. ETC.

The Supreme Court held that the canons of professional ethics and propriety for the legal profession absolutely prohibit soliciting work, advertising, scrambling, or other improper practices for obtaining professional employment. Rule 36 is not exhaustive; professional misconduct must be judged by well-established ethical standards. The disciplinary tribunal's errors in procedure were serious but, on the facts, individualized guilt had to be established for each respondent. The law of misconduct applies on broad ethical grounds, not formal trisection of Rule 36.

Source excerpt

  • Advocates act, 1961
  • Professional ethics
  • Disciplinary proceedings
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.