Modernizing Legal Practice: Strengthening the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (Feedback given on draft Bill 2025)

Modernizing Legal Practice: Strengthening the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025

By Rajesh Harishankar Singh, Advocate – Bombay High Court

Date: 19th February 2025

---

Introduction

The Government’s initiative in introducing the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a significant effort to modernize and strengthen the legal profession in India. This blog post explains the key features of the draft bill in a simple, accessible language—with practical examples—and outlines additional proposals to fill existing gaps. We also compare these proposals with best practices from jurisdictions like the US, UK, and Australia, making it easy for law students and practitioners to trace the sources.

For ease of reference, our discussion is divided into three parts:

• Part I: General Proposed Changes (with clause references and examples)
• Part II: Detailed Notes on the Proposed Enhancements
• Part III: Step-by-Step Process for a Law Graduate Under the Proposed Amendments

---

Part I. General Proposed Changes to the Draft Bill

1. National Advocate ID (NAI) and Centralized SSISO System

Current Situation:
The current draft does not mandate a centralized digital identity. Advocates must register separately with State Bar Councils, leading to administrative inefficiencies and potential duplication.

Proposed Change:
Introduce a National Advocate ID (NAI) linked to Aadhaar, issued through a Single Sign-In/Sign-Out (SSISO) system. This will create a single, uniform identity for all advocates, streamlining registration and facilitating seamless inter-state transfers.

Example:
Imagine an advocate practicing in Maharashtra. With the NAI, if he later moves to another state, his credentials and practice details transfer automatically without the need for duplicate enrolment.

---

2. Digital Address and Certificate Verification System

Current Situation:
Address verification is largely manual and inconsistent. Although the draft requires verification, it lacks a modern, automated backend.

Proposed Change:
Implement an automated digital verification system using Aadhaar-based eKYC for real-time address confirmation, supplemented by certified postal verification with a neighbor witness whose Aadhaar details are recorded. Additionally, all law degrees and enrolment certificates should be authenticated via integration with DigiLocker and university databases.

Example:
A graduate from a Mumbai law school would have his degree verified online instantly, while his address would be confirmed digitally and via a postal check, ensuring accurate records.

---

3. Unified Training Portal with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

Current Situation:
There is no structured system specifying the ratio of online to offline training or tracking of professional development.

Proposed Change:
Mandate a National Legal Training Portal through the BCI where training records are maintained digitally. The system should require 70% of training to be delivered online (lectures, interactive sessions, and live webinars) and 30% offline (certificate courses), with access restricted to registered advocates via SSISO.

Example:
A lawyer might complete a series of online modules (70% of his CLE) and attend a live workshop (making up the remaining 30%) – all tracked and recorded on the centralized portal for performance assessment.

---

4. Five-Year Life and Practice Certificate (LPC) Verification

Current Situation:
The bill mandates verification of practice details every five years but lacks real-time tracking, which can lead to outdated records.

Proposed Change:
Require advocates to submit an online Life and Practice Certificate (LPC) tied to their NAI. Integrate this process with court case management systems for automatic re-verification of active practice.

Example:
Every five years, an advocate must update his LPC online. If he’s actively appearing in cases, his records are automatically updated from the court’s system, ensuring his practice details remain current.

---

5. Mandatory Judicial On-the-Spot Assessments

Current Situation:
Promotions to Senior Advocate or Designated Counsel rely on subjective recommendations, with no formal, real-time performance feedback.

Proposed Change:
Implement a system whereby judges provide immediate, case-based performance ratings on a scale of 1–10 for advocates appearing before them. These ratings—accounting for 60% weightage in promotion decisions—will be permanently recorded in the BCI system and cannot be altered later.

Example:
During a complex case, a judge rates an advocate 9/10 for their effectiveness, which later becomes a key part of his record when considered for promotion to Senior Advocate.

---

6. Compliance and Penalty System for Lawyers

Current Situation:
The draft bill does not clearly specify penalties for non-compliance with verification, training, and practice updates.

Proposed Change:
Introduce clear penalties: non-updated credentials (NAI, LPC, CLE) will result in automatic suspension until compliance is met, and failure to follow digital verification procedures may attract fines. This should be integrated into Section 45 and corresponding regulations.

Example:
If an advocate fails to update his LPC after five years, his licence could be suspended automatically, and he might face a fine until he complies with the mandatory update.

---

7. Provision for Strike / Boycott

Current Situation:
The draft bill lacks comprehensive highlights on the issue of strike, although it does include provisions against boycott.

Proposed Change:
Incorporate a specific clause (as per Section 35A) that explicitly prohibits advocates or associations from calling for a boycott or abstention from court work, ensuring that no advocate’s strike disrupts the administration of justice.

Example:
Even if advocates face issues at their workplace, they cannot collectively decide to boycott court proceedings, which protects the functioning of the judicial system.

---

Part II. Detailed Notes and Examples (Annexure 1)

Here, we provide further explanations of the proposed changes:

1. Recognition of In-House Counsel Experience:
   Current rules often penalize lawyers transitioning to in-house roles.
   Proposed Change:
   Allow advocates who move to in-house counsel roles without notifying the Bar Council to retain their licenses, thereby recognizing their corporate experience.
   Example: An advocate working as an in-house counsel at a corporation can continue practicing without interruption.

2. Enhanced Digital Verification:
   Traditional verification methods are slow and error-prone.
   Proposed Change:
   Mandate eKYC using Aadhaar and integration with DigiLocker for all certificate and degree verifications.

3. Centralized Portal and SSISO System:
   The current system requires multiple registrations.
   Proposed Change:
   Develop a unified portal that issues a National Advocate ID (NAI) and integrates State Bar IDs and local court practice IDs, simplifying transfers and practice management.

4. Structured Training and Assessment:
   Without a standard system, training records vary widely.
   Proposed Change:
   Implement a training portal with a clear 70% online / 30% offline split, along with mandatory judicial performance assessments.

---

Part III. Step-by-Step Process for a Law Graduate (Annexure 2)

Here’s how a typical law graduate’s journey would look under the revised system:

1. Completion of Law Degree:

   • Graduate from a recognized law school.
   • Verification: Degree is automatically verified using DigiLocker and Aadhaar (per Section 24).
     New: Automated backend verification system is mandatory.

2. Clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE):

   • Pass the AIBE and pay required professional fees.

3. Enrolment with the State Bar Council (SBC):

   • Apply online; receive an enrolment certificate.
     New: A National Advocate ID (NAI) is issued at this stage, ensuring a unified identity.

4. Registration with the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Practice Verification:

   • Declare the place of practice; undergo periodic re-verification (every five years).
     New: Real-time address verification using eKYC and postal methods is integrated.

5. Bar Association Registration:

   • Register with the local Bar Association where you intend to practice.
     New: Changes must be updated digitally via the SSISO system, with TSISO for temporary appearances.

6. Continuing Legal Education (CLE):

   • Participate in mandated online and offline training (70% online, 30% offline).
     New: Training records are maintained on the centralized portal and accessed via SSISO.

7. Life and Practice Certificate Submission:

   • Every five years, submit an online Life and Practice Certificate (LPC) linked to your NAI.
     New: Integration with court case management systems ensures automatic re-verification.

8. Judicial On-the-Spot Assessments:

   • Judges provide immediate performance ratings (scale 1–10) during proceedings.
     New: These ratings contribute 60% towards promotion decisions and are permanently recorded.

9. Compliance and Penalties:

   • Non-compliance with verification, training, or LPC updates leads to suspension or fines as per Section 45.
     New: A clear penalty structure is established to ensure adherence to all requirements.

---

International Best Practices: Learning from the US, UK, and Australia

To further strengthen the Bill, India can adopt successful practices from other jurisdictions:

• United Kingdom:
  The Bar Standards Board uses an online authorisation portal for barristers.
  Reference: Bar Standards Board – Authorisation to Practise
  Application: Integrate a similar SSISO-based system for the NAI.

• United States:
  The American Bar Association (ABA) mandates structured CLE and performance evaluations.
  Reference: ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
  Application: Establish measurable CLE with specified online training quotas and integrate case-based judicial assessments.

• Australia:
  The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia employs a centralized digital system for verification and practice monitoring.
  Reference: Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
  Application: Adopt a similar approach using Aadhaar-linked eKYC and regular audits.

---

Conclusion

The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is a major step toward a modern, transparent, and efficient legal profession in India. However, as highlighted in our proposals:

• Introducing a National Advocate ID (NAI), enhanced digital verification, a unified SSISO system, structured CLE, streamlined fee transfers, mandatory judicial performance assessments, and a clear penalty system (including provisions against strikes) are essential to bridge current gaps.

By integrating these changes—and drawing on international best practices—India can build a robust framework that benefits law students and practicing advocates alike.

---

For further verification and details, please refer to:

• Bar Standards Board – Authorisation to Practise (UK)
• ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (US)
• Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (Australia)

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below or reach out for further discussion!

Supreme Court of India Judgement on Adverse Possession (March 2024)Guidelines for Owner and Claimant

For the Owner:Must regularly inspect and maintain the property to prevent adverse possession claims.Any intrusion or occupation must be contested promptly and legally.For the Claimant:Continuous and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period (usually 12 years).Possession must be open, notorious, and adverse to the interests of the owner.Must provide clear and unequivocal evidence of adverse possession.These guidelines aim to balance the rights of property owners with the legal doctrine of adverse possession, ensuring fair and just resolution of property disputes.

Legal Analysis: Additional Prosecution thru 319 of CrPC

Summary Notes of the lecture on Section 319 Cr.P.C.: Power of Court to Summon Accused by Mr S.R. Somasekhara, Bengaluru/Dist Judge 

Below is a cohesive and arranged version of the lecture regarding Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), integrating the various aspects and legal provisions referenced during the speaker's lecture from speakers point of view:

---

Good evening, friends. Today, I will discuss Section 319 of the CrPC, which allows courts to proceed against persons who appear to be guilty of an offense during an inquiry or trial. Before delving into Section 319, it is essential to understand other related provisions of the CrPC, such as Section 190, which deals with the magistrate's power to take cognizance of offenses based on complaints, police reports, or other sources.**

**Section 190 CrPC**: This section empowers magistrates to take cognizance of offenses. Understanding this provision helps in grasping the operational context of Section 319, as it sets the stage for initiating legal proceedings.

**Section 173 CrPC**: Discusses the police report submitted post-investigation. It is crucial for understanding how a magistrate might proceed against someone not named in the initial report if evidence later suggests their involvement.

**Section 204 CrPC**: Relates to the issuance of process. It is important when discussing the initial stages of legal proceedings, leading up to and supporting the use of Section 319.

**Section 319 CrPC**: Specifically, I'll focus on this section, which allows the court to act against any person not being a defendant but appearing, based on evidence during a trial or inquiry, to be guilty of the offense. This provision can be invoked at any stage of the trial or inquiry, provided sufficient evidence emerges.

**Live Case Examples**: I will share a few cases from my experience to illustrate the practical application of these provisions:

1. **Misappropriation of Funds Case**: Involving an employee from the social welfare department who misappropriated scholarship funds. Despite the police's failure to trace the accused initially, I treated the closure report as a charge sheet and issued process against the accused based on sufficient information in the first information report.

2. **Government Surveyor Case**: Concerning a surveyor accused of possessing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The special court allowed further investigation after the initial finding of guilt, illustrating the ongoing judicial process and the possibility of revisiting initial decisions based on new evidence.

**Legal Process and Judicial Actions**: In cases where individuals are not named in initial reports or charge sheets but later implicated by evidence, it is essential for the judiciary to critically evaluate such evidence. This might involve not accepting police closure reports at face value or revisiting earlier judicial decisions when new material facts come to light.

**Section 319's Flexibility**: It is a powerful tool that ensures all individuals who appear to be involved based on evidence presented during judicial proceedings are brought to justice. This provision supports the principle that legal proceedings must adapt to emerging evidence to uphold justice.

**Conclusion by speaker**: Section 319 CrPC is crucial for ensuring comprehensive justice. It allows courts to summon additional accused based on emerging evidence during a trial or inquiry, reflecting the dynamic nature of legal proceedings and the judiciary's role in adapting to new information.

Conclusion or addition from blogger perspective 

The Allahabad High Court  clarified that when a witness is recalled after another person has been added as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, the examination of that witness is limited to the newly added accused only

The Supreme Court has said a person can be summoned by the trial court under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code only after recording prima facie satisfaction to proceed but the degree of satisfaction is much stricter.

Can a Trial Court Summon a New Accused Under Section 319 of the CrPC After the Trial Has Concluded? The Supreme Court held that a trial court may summon new accused persons in a trial, as stated by Section 319 only when proceedings are pending or ongoing.

During the investigation, if there is insufficient evidence against one or more named accused, then Police can remove their name(s) or would not include their names in charge sheet. Further, In case, the accused is in custody then he may be released under section 169 Cr.

The Supreme, recently, observed that once a written statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court marks it as exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with Section 313(4) Cr. P.C

A statement made by an accused person is admissible against others who are being jointly tried with him only if the statement amounts to a confession. Where the statement falls short of a confession, it is admissible only against its maker as an admission and not against those who are being jointly tried with him. A application made by accused under section 319 crpc without confessions has no evidentiary value 

Section 319 CrPC is closely tied to the concept of double jeopardy, which forbids an accused person from being prosecuted more than once for the same offence. This view is in line with Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution which prohibits the prosecution of a person for the same offence more than once.

On basis of Circumstantial evidence(CE) can 319 order be passed? CE is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim.

---

This restructured format presents the discussion in a logical, coherent manner, emphasizing the legal framework, practical applications, and the notes are transcript of speaker's personal judicial experiences related to Section 319 CrPC

YouTube link: .https://www.youtube.com/live/U_lg7HJRxAk?si=UzUmTvUA35oKVKHL

Property and Testamentary Law: Mutation in abeyance due to conflicting Wills

Facts and History: Unraveling the Inheritance Enigma

In the picturesque hills of Hindwadi, Belgaum, a legal saga unfolded, shrouded in the complexities of conflicting wills and disputed property rights. The story begins with the passing of Mr. Pralhad Raghavendra Desai, leaving behind a substantial estate. Two wills surfaced, each claiming legitimacy and the right to control the deceased's legacy.

Mr. Rajiv Surendra Doddanavar, backed by a will dated 2nd January 2007, and Ms. Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya, supported by a will dated 24th June 2015, found themselves locked in a legal battle over inheritance. The matter escalated as mutation entries were made in favor of Ms. Chalukya based on the latter will.

Arguments of Lawyers: Dueling Legal Minds

The courtroom became the arena where legal luminaries sparred over the interpretation of laws and the validity of the mutation entry. Mr. A. A Khandeparkar, representing Mr. Doddanavar, vehemently argued that the mutation entry, certified in Ms. Chalukya's favor, should be invalidated pending civil court adjudication. Citing legal precedents, he emphasized the revenue authorities' lack of jurisdiction in determining ownership disputes arising from contested wills.

In contrast, Mr. Prasad Dani, representing Ms. Chalukya, countered by asserting the legality of the mutation entry, citing provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. He argued that the entry was duly certified following prescribed procedures and should stand until a civil court conclusively determines ownership rights.

Decision of the Court: Justice Prevails

After meticulous consideration of arguments and legal provisions, the Bombay High Court delivered its verdict, bringing clarity to the convoluted legal landscape. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, presiding over the case, underscored the limitations of revenue authorities in resolving disputes entwined with contested wills.

The court ruled to keep the mutation entry in abeyance, pending civil court adjudication on ownership rights. It emphasized the need to prevent multiplicity of entries and acknowledged the indirect adjudication attempted by revenue authorities. The judgment echoed the principle that while mutation entries don't confer title, they're intertwined with issues of ownership.

Legal Provisions and Case Citation

The application was filed under *Writ Petition No. 7194 of 2021* in the Bombay High Court. The court assessed the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, particularly Sections 149 and 150, which govern the acquisition of rights and the procedure for mutation entries.

**Case Citation:** *Rajiv Surendra Doddanavar v. Madhuri Veerdhaval Chalukya & Ors., 2024:BHC-AS:15910*

Reactions of Public: Ramdev Baba wellness beneficiary and former CIC interview

In addition to latest information regarding the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali which is explicitly detailed in the previous blog of today. 

The interview with former CIC (and Sr Journalist) and Jahgran seems to cover broader topics about Patanjali and Baba Ramdev’s relevance in India, the trust people have in them, and their contributions to promoting Ayurveda and Yoga nationally and internationally.

**Views of Former Chief Information Commissioner and Journalists Journey with Baba Ramdev:**

- **Former Chief Information Commissioner's Views:** The transcript touches upon the work and views of a former Central Information Commissioner, who seems to have a deep familiarity with Baba Ramdev. The discussion indicates a profound respect for Ramdev’s initiatives and suggests that the commissioner has observed or studied Ramdev's activities closely, possibly relating to his books and public contributions.

  

- **Journalist's Journey with Baba Ramdev:** A journalist who has written extensively, including works on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Veer Savarkar, shares his experience and perspectives on Baba Ramdev. The journalist describes his long-standing relationship with Ramdev, detailing the significant impact Ramdev has had on the promotion of Yoga and Ayurveda. The journalist expresses a strong support and endorsement of Ramdev’s practices and philosophy, citing personal experiences and the broader benefits that Ramdev’s work has purportedly brought to many in India.

The narrative from these descriptions paints a picture of Baba Ramdev as a revolutionary figure who has significantly influenced the fields of health, wellness, and national identity through Ayurveda and Yoga. The commentary also touches on controversies and criticisms but tends to emphasize the positive impacts attributed to Ramdev’s efforts.

Supreme Court updates; Ramdev Baba vs IMA

Based on the latest update provided regarding the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali, here are the key aspects of the Supreme Court's actions and considerations:

1. **Impleading Relevant Authorities and Parties:** The Supreme Court has decided to implead the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, all licensing authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. This inclusion is significant as it expands the scope of the inquiry into the practices of not just Patanjali but also the broader pharmaceutical and consumer goods sectors.

2. **Focus on Advertisement Claims:** A major focus of the PIL now includes examining the claims made in advertisements by pharmaceutical companies. This specifically relates to the endorsement of costly medicines, with an investigation into how these endorsements influence patient choices.

3. **Doctor Endorsements:** The court is also scrutinizing the role of doctors and medical professionals in endorsing specific medicines or treatments, which can sometimes lead to the prescription of unnecessary, expensive medication over more cost-effective solutions.

4. **Influence on Patients:** There is a concern about various methods used by the healthcare industry to influence patients towards certain medical products or treatments, which may not always be in the patient's best interest.

5. **Scope of Issues Related to Allopathy Medicine Misuse:** The PIL aims to cover a wide array of issues concerning the misuse of allopathic medicine, including but not limited to:

   - Side effects of allopathic treatments not adequately disclosed to patients.

   - Over-prescription of drugs.

   - Misleading marketing practices that do not fully inform or may even misinform about the efficacy of treatments.

   - The recommendation of unnecessary medical equipment and over-the-counter products that support allopathic treatments.

6. **FMCG Company Recommendations:** The court intends to examine the role of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) companies in the healthcare sector, particularly regarding their recommendations for treating various conditions. This includes everyday items such as oils for babies to more specific medical devices, and how these recommendations are marketed to the public.

7. **Overall Impact on Public Health and Consumer Rights:** The broader implication of these proceedings is to ensure consumer rights are protected against commercial practices in the healthcare sector that may prioritize profit over patient care and wellbeing.

By addressing these issues, the Supreme Court is looking to ensure that there is a fair, transparent, and ethical practice across the board in the healthcare and consumer goods sectors, particularly in how products and treatments are marketed and recommended to the public.

Supreme Court: Witness or party to suit in witness box should be treated the same

Summarized version of supreme court judgement on Witness examination and cross examination as per CPC

The Supreme Court of India, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, overturned a decision from the Bombay High Court regarding the production of documents during cross-examination in civil cases. The Bombay High Court had ruled that a fresh document cannot be introduced to confront a witness who is also a party to the suit during their cross-examination, suggesting a difference between the treatment of parties to a suit and other witnesses.

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that no legal distinction should be made between parties to a suit and witnesses when it comes to the introduction of documents during cross-examination. The case focused on interpreting various rules from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Order 7 Rule 14, Order 8 Rule 1A, and Order 13 Rule 3. The court found that these provisions allow for the production of documents to either refresh a witness's memory or confront during cross-examination, applicable equally to all witnesses whether or not they are parties to the suit.

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarified that the law does not support differentiating between a witness and a party to the suit when they are in the witness box. Both are subject to the same procedures and can be confronted with documents as part of evidence gathering and cross-examination. This ruling aimed to ensure fairness in legal proceedings by allowing comprehensive examination opportunities, thereby aiding the discovery of truth, which the court emphasized as the ultimate goal of a trial.

This decision was delivered in the context of the case titled "Mohammed Mohammed Bin Nilofer and Another," with citation 2023 Lev SC 100061.

(Details can be read from this webpage from https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/documents-produced-cross-examination-civil-trial-confront-party-suit-witness-cpc-supreme-court-244705 )