Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The courts have also highlighted that actions taken by Bar councils or associations, such as disciplinary proceedings or voter list challenges, must be within legal bounds, and illegal actions by these bodies can be struck down ["1930 0 Supreme(Mad) 201"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["1934 0 Supreme(Mad) 436"]- ["1928 0 Supreme(Mad) 128"]- ["1931 0 Supreme(Mad) 183"]- ["1965 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 2"]- ["2017 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 383"]- ["1921 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 50"]- ["2024 Supreme(HK)(HKCA) 66"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 376"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74913"]- ["1930 0 Supreme(Mad) 201"]- ["2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3447"]- ["2025 7 Supreme 147"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 398"]
In the heart of India's judicial system lies a delicate balance: the relationship between the Bar (advocates and lawyers) and the Bench (judges). Often described as the two inextricable wings of the judicial forum, this partnership is crucial for upholding the . But is this relationship truly cordial? A common query arises: bar bench is codial relation – likely seeking clarity on whether the Bar-Bench dynamic is one of harmony and mutual respect.
This blog post delves into <>Supreme court> insights, emphasizing that yes, generally, the relationship is expected to be cordial, rooted in dignity, decorum, and cooperation. Drawing from key judgments like R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General () 16 SCC 407 and C. Ravichandran Iyer () 5 SCC 457, we'll explore the legal framework, responsibilities, threats, and recommendations. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice – consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
The <>Supreme court> has consistently held that the is fundamentally based on mutual respect, dignity, decorum, and cooperation. These elements are essential for the effective functioning of the judicial system. As observed, the mutual reverence is absolutely necessary for the judiciary's success. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
Without this harmony, the suffers. Courts stress that both sides share a joint responsibility to nurture cordial ties, preserving independence and dignity. Unprofessional conduct or acts undermining either party can erode this foundation, threatening . 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
Legal precedents repeatedly highlight mutual reverence as non-negotiable. In R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, the stated: it is the duty of the Bar to protect honest Judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same time to ensure that corrupt Judges are not spared and that both the Bar and the Bench maintain dignity and decorum of each other. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
This reciprocity fosters trust. Judges rely on advocates for fair arguments, while lawyers depend on impartial rulings. Disruptions, such as aggressive protests or unfounded allegations, not only harm individuals but the system's credibility.
The <>Supreme court> views the Bar and Bench as interdependent: without active cooperation of the Bar and the Bench, it is not possible to preserve the and its dignity. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
Both must refrain from actions disturbing this balance, ensuring justice flows unhindered.
Certain behaviors pose serious risks:- Scandalizing the Judiciary: In C. Ravichandran Iyer, the ruled that scurrilous criticism of conduct of a Judge/Chief Justice and pressurizing or coercing him to demit office would constitute contempt of and affect independence of judiciary. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345- Violence or Protests: Any undermining of dignity invites . 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919- Insubordination: Public attacks or disruptive conduct erode mutual respect.
These acts not only invite legal repercussions but fracture the cordial framework essential for justice.
Judges actively safeguard this relationship: both the Bar and the Bench must maintain dignity and decorum of each other and the has the power to take appropriate action if acts of misconduct or acts that disturb the harmony are committed. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
Through contempt powers and guidelines, courts guide behavior, reinforcing shared duties.
While cordiality is key, is allowed. Criticism based on authentic and acceptable material doesn't threaten relations and may even strengthen accountability. However, baseless attacks cross into misconduct, punishable via disciplinary or contempt actions. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
In broader contexts, terms like cordial relations appear elsewhere in law – for instance, in witness statements denying enmity (e.g., claiming codial relations with parties in a criminal case under ), highlighting how harmony contrasts with conflict in non-judicial disputes. 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 1222 This underscores the judiciary's unique emphasis on professional cordiality.
Other rulings, like those on procedural references between benches, affirm no absolute bars to cooperation, mirroring inter-institutional harmony: There is no bar shown whereby a Bench is precluded from referring the entire case for decision by a larger Bench – it depends entirely on the reference made. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 326 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 537
To preserve this vital dynamic:- Promote mutual respect and decorum through training and ethics programs.- Strengthen disciplinary mechanisms for swift misconduct resolution.- Address scandalization promptly to deter threats.- Courts should supervise and guide, recognizing cordiality's role in .
These steps ensure the Bar-Bench bond remains robust.
In summary, the is, generally, designed to be cordial, with mutual respect as its cornerstone. As affirmed in core judgments, harmony between these inextricable wings is indispensable for justice. While challenges like misconduct arise, legal safeguards and shared responsibilities maintain balance. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919
Key Takeaways:- Cordiality fosters effective judiciary functioning.- Mutual dignity prevents disruptions.- Courts enforce harmony via contempt and guidelines.- Constructive criticism is okay; malice is not.
For those in legal practice, prioritizing decorum upholds not just personal integrity but the nation's justice system. Stay informed, act responsibly.
References:1. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 345: Emphasizes mutual respect and joint responsibilities.2. 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1919: Reiterates harmony's role and misconduct prevention.
#BarBenchRelations, #JudicialHarmony, #IndianLaw
Nor does the use of the word final in Rule 28 of Schedule IV (Taxation and Finance Rules) operate as a bar to the filing of a suit. As has been pointed out in Valli Ammal v. ... The Codial Bail Press, Mangalore I.L.R.(1903) 27 Mad. 547 : 14 M.L.J. 410. The words in Section 354 (of Act V of 1920) were similarly construed in Municipal Council, Cuddalore v. Krishnan Nambiar I.L.R.(1927) 20 Mad. 987 : 54 M.L.J. 147. ... It was held by a Bench of this Court that where a Company not liable to the tax had been taxed, there was a substantial disr....
Codial Bail Press 27 M. 547 it was held that a Civil Court can intervene when the Municipality has deliberately acted upon a wrong basis in contravention of the clear provision of the Act. In that case it was not an isolated mistake but a fundamental departure from the meaning of the Statute.
and effect complied with and that Section 262 of the Act would not be a bar to the suit to recover the amount of tax,paid under the assessment. ... The Codial Bail Press [1904]27Mad.547, it was held by Sir Subramania Ayyar, Officiating Chief Justice and Bashyam Ayyangar, J., that if a person was assessed under Section 53, Schedule (a), Act 4 of 1884 on his "gross income" instead of on his "net income" the provisions of the Act have not been in substance ... Cases of "fundamental departures from the meaning of the statute" are excluded from the operation of....
Vidhyarthi were right, then, it follows that the bar which is created by clause (c) is a temporary bar. The bar lasts during the pendency of the litigation in the Court in which the document is produced. ... If this is the true object, then, it will be noticed that the bar created under clause (b) is a permanent bar and there is nothing in that particular clause which indicates that the bar would be removed the moment the proceedings terminate. ... The object can be achieved only if cl....
On the one hand, a bar has been put in the way of the High Court (as also of the Sessions Judge) for exercise of the revisional power in relation to any interlocutory order, on the other, the power has been conferred in almost the same terms as it was in the 1898 Code. ... In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of S.397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relati....
In light of the aforementioned decision, it is contended that the employer-employee relationship is not strictly necessary for the applicability of the PoSH Act, as clarified by the Division Bench. ... [2022 (2) KHC 565] the Division Bench of this Court held: “Therefore, it cannot be said that even if the respondent Organisations have no direct employer-employee relationship with the Actor Artists and consequent to which no Internal ... The Kollam Bar Association will not come under the purview of Article 12. ... The Bar#HL_EN....
In light of the aforementioned decision, it is contended that the employer-employee relationship is not strictly necessary for the applicability of the PoSH Act, as clarified by the Division Bench. ... [2022 (2) KHC 565] the Division Bench of this Court held: “Therefore, it cannot be said that even if the respondent Organisations have no direct employer-employee relationship with the Actor Artists and consequent to which no Internal ... The Kollam Bar Association will not come under the purview of Article 12. ... The Bar#HL_EN....
The Codial BailPress (1903) 14 M.L.J. 410: I.L.R. 27 Mad. 547.) The levy is thus illegal in this case. I therefore reverse the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsiff. I direct each party to bear his or their own costs throughout.
The Codial Bail Press,1904 27 ILR(Mad) 547 are under the Madras District Municipalities Act, S. 262(2) of which is similar to S. 53 of the Berar Municipal Law. ... 6. ... Codial Bail Press the tax had been levied on the gross income while it should have been levied on the net income and it was held that the above mentioned section did not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to refund the tax illegally recovered.
on a matter in relation to his professional practice. ... of an ongoing disciplinary hearing before the Tribunal, and he should supply a transcript of those parts of the recording he wished to rely on in relation to Complaints 2 and 3. ... These statements do not provide support for the proposition that the Bar Council as the prosecuting authority (insofar as any complaint is made against the Bar Council of breach of a duty of disclosure) is required to disclose all unused materials regardless of relevance. ... A....
In view of the above, our answer to the issue under consideration must depend on the Reference Order as made by the Division Bench. Generally speaking, they are right in their contention, but it also depends on the reference made. The law on the subject has crystallised through a long line of decisions and it need not be reiterated again and again: There is no bar shown whereby a Bench is precluded from referring the entire case for decision by a larger Bench-it depends entirely on the reference made.
The orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra no doubt reveal that in those cases, the grant of interim relief was left open for consideration by the larger Bench. But there is no bar per se for the referring Bench to pass interim orders while sending matters to a larger Bench. In Ashok Kumar Thakur (8) v. Union of India (supra), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra), M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (supra), S.V. Joshi v. State of Karnataka (supra), P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 8 SCC 139 and Modern Dental College & Research Inst....
There is no bar shown whereby a Bench is precluded from referring the entire case for decision by a larger Bench - it depends entirely on the reference made. In view of the above, our answer to the issue under consideration must depend on the Reference Order as made by the Division Bench. The law on the subject has crystallised through a long line of decisions and it need not be reiterated again and again: 140. In any event, that issue does not arise in this appeal and so nothing more need be said on the subject."
I am having codial relations with Yamin, his maternal uncle. Neither me nor my associates had made any attempt on the life of Shahjad on that day or on any other day. I am not aware why Yamin and Shahjad had deposed against me.”
In any event, that issue does not arise in this appeal and so nothing more need be said on the subject. There is no bar shown whereby a Bench is precluded from referring the entire case for decision by a larger Bench - it depends entirely on the reference made.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
