Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft

Posted on July 7 by Suprajaa Rajan

A practical legal remedy to seek permanent exemption from personal appearance before the criminal court while allowing the case to proceed through an advocate.

In criminal proceedings, the personal appearance of the accused is generally required on every date of hearing. However, courts recognize that compelling an accused to appear on every occasion may cause undue hardship, particularly where the accused resides in another city or country, is of advanced age, suffers from medical conditions, or has professional or personal commitments. To address such situations, the law empowers courts to grant permanent exemption from personal appearance in appropriate cases.

An Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance allows the accused to be represented by counsel while remaining exempt from attending routine hearings, subject to conditions imposed by the court.

This article explains the legal framework, grounds for seeking exemption, drafting strategy, and provides a ready-to-use sample format with copy-to-clipboard functionality.

I. Legal Framework

The power to exempt an accused from personal appearance is derived from the following provisions:

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 205 CrPC – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of the accused.
Section 317 CrPC – Provision for inquiry and trial in the absence of the accused under certain circumstances.

Corresponding Provisions under BNSS, 2023

Section 227 BNSS – Magistrate may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused.
Section 366 BNSS – Court may proceed in the absence of the accused in appropriate cases.

Therefore, courts possess discretionary power to dispense with personal attendance where such exemption would not prejudice the proceedings.

II. What is an Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance?

An Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance is a formal request made to the criminal court seeking permission for the accused to remain absent from routine hearings while being represented through an advocate.

If allowed, the accused generally remains exempt from personal appearance except when the court specifically directs otherwise.

The application does not seek exemption from the criminal proceedings themselves. Instead, it seeks exemption only from routine physical attendance before the court.

III. When Can This Application Be Filed?

An accused may seek permanent exemption where:

The accused resides in another State or outside India.
Regular travel causes substantial hardship.
The accused is a senior citizen.
The accused suffers from serious illness or physical disability.
The accused has unavoidable professional commitments.
The case involves routine procedural hearings.
Personal appearance is unnecessary for effective adjudication.

Accordingly, the court considers whether exemption would affect the fair conduct of the trial.

IV. Why is This Application Important?

Filing this application can:

Reduce unnecessary travel and expenses.
Avoid repeated disruption of employment or business.
Minimise hardship caused by frequent court appearances.
Ensure continuous representation through an advocate.
Enable smooth progress of the trial without unnecessary adjournments.

Thus, permanent exemption promotes both judicial efficiency and convenience, provided the accused continues to comply with court directions.

V. Factors Considered by the Court

While deciding the application, the court generally examines:

Nature of the alleged offence.
Stage of the proceedings.
Necessity of personal presence.
Conduct of the accused.
Whether the accused has complied with earlier court directions.
Possibility of prejudice to the prosecution.
Whether the advocate undertakes to represent the accused on every hearing.

The court may also reserve liberty to direct the accused to appear whenever necessary.

VI. Essential Elements of the Application

Before drafting, ensure the application includes:

Name of the court.
Case details.
Particulars of the accused.
Grounds for seeking exemption.
Assurance regarding representation through counsel.
Undertaking to appear whenever directed by the court.
Prayer for permanent exemption.

A properly drafted application demonstrates bona fide conduct and procedural compliance.

VII. Drafting Strategy

While preparing the application:

Clearly explain the genuine hardship.
Avoid vague or unsupported reasons.
Mention that the advocate shall remain present on every hearing.
Undertake to appear whenever specifically directed.
Maintain respectful and concise language.

A well-supported application substantially improves the likelihood of obtaining exemption.

VIII. Sample Draft Format – Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance

Sample Draft – Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE [COURT NAME]
AT [PLACE]
Case No. ________
State / Complainant
…Complainant
Versus
[Name of Accused]
…Accused
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 205 CrPC
(SECTION 227 BNSS)
SEEKING PERMANENT EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
The Applicant most respectfully submits:
1. The Applicant is an accused in the above-mentioned case.
2. The Applicant respectfully submits that regular personal appearance before this Hon’ble Court causes considerable hardship due to [medical condition/residence outside jurisdiction/professional obligations/other genuine reason].
3. The Applicant has always cooperated with the proceedings and undertakes to continue doing so.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing and shall represent the Applicant throughout the proceedings.
5. The Applicant further undertakes to appear personally before this Hon’ble Court whenever specifically directed.
6. No prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution if the present application is allowed.
PRAYER
It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly dispense with the personal appearance of the Applicant permanently and permit representation through counsel, in the interest of justice.

Place: _______
Date: _______

Counsel for the Applicant

IX. Common Mistakes to Avoid

Avoid:

Seeking exemption without genuine grounds.
Failing to explain the hardship.
Omitting an undertaking to appear when directed.
Filing the application without authorising counsel.
Assuming exemption applies automatically after filing.

Instead, support the application with relevant documents, such as medical records, employment certificates, or proof of residence, wherever applicable.

Conclusion

An Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance provides a practical solution for accused persons who face genuine difficulty in attending every court hearing. When supported by valid reasons and an undertaking to remain represented through counsel, courts often exercise their discretion to grant such relief while ensuring that the administration of justice remains unaffected.

Index of Legal Templates and Drafting is here.

Disclaimer

These templates are provided for educational and informational purposes. Every case depends on specific facts and procedural posture. Professional legal advice should be obtained before filing any application.

Post Views: 71

Passport Implications in 498A Cases – A Complete Practical Guide

Posted on July 7 by Suprajaa Rajan

One of the most common fears among individuals facing a Section 498A IPC complaint is:

“Will I lose my passport?”
“Can I travel abroad?”
“Will a 498A case stop passport renewal?”

In reality, a 498A FIR does not automatically cancel a passport. However, criminal proceedings can create important practical issues relating to:

Passport renewal
Police verification
Travel abroad
Bail conditions
Court permissions
Look Out Circulars (in some cases)
Immigration scrutiny

Understanding the legal position is essential because many accused persons either panic unnecessarily or travel without obtaining required permissions, which can create avoidable complications.

This article explains the practical legal position regarding passports in 498A cases, including FIR stage, chargesheet stage, bail conditions, renewal issues, and overseas travel.

The First Important Principle

A 498A FIR does NOT automatically cancel your passport.

Many people assume that the moment an FIR is registered, the passport becomes invalid. That is not the general legal position.

However, criminal proceedings may affect how you use the passport, especially if:

Bail conditions restrict travel
The court requires permission before leaving India
A Look Out Circular is issued
The passport authority seeks additional disclosure

Stage 1: FIR Registered Under Section 498A IPC

What happens to the passport?

Usually:

Passport remains valid.
Existing travel may still be possible.
No automatic impounding occurs.

Practical Point

The bigger issue at this stage is usually arrest risk, not passport cancellation.

Many accused first seek anticipatory bail before making travel plans.

Stage 2: Anticipatory Bail Granted

Courts granting anticipatory bail may impose conditions such as:

Cooperate with investigation
Appear before police
Do not leave India without permission
Surrender passport in some cases

Important

Read the bail order carefully.

Some orders contain no travel restriction, while others specifically require prior court permission.

Stage 3: Chargesheet Filed

After investigation, the police may file a chargesheet.

At this stage:

Passport is still not automatically cancelled.
However, the court may monitor the accused’s presence more closely.
Travel abroad may require formal permission if the bail order so requires.

Can the Court Ask for Passport Surrender?

Yes.

In appropriate cases, courts may direct surrender of passport, particularly if they believe there is a risk of absconding.

Factors considered include:

NRI status
Frequent foreign travel
Previous non-cooperation
Risk of leaving jurisdiction permanently

However, such directions are case-specific, not automatic.

Can You Renew a Passport During a 498A Case?

Usually yes, but disclosure may be required.

Passport applications generally ask whether criminal proceedings are pending.

Do not conceal pending cases.

Suppression can create more serious problems than the case itself.

The passport authority may:

Seek details of the pending case.
Ask for court orders.
Grant a passport for a limited validity period in some situations.
Process the application subject to applicable rules.

Can Police Stop You at the Airport?

Not merely because a 498A FIR exists.

Problems may arise if:

A Look Out Circular (LOC) has been issued.
A court order restrains travel.
A warrant is pending.
The accused has violated bail conditions.

What Is a Look Out Circular (LOC)?

An LOC is a mechanism used to alert immigration authorities about a person whose movement may need to be monitored.

In matrimonial cases, LOCs are more commonly seen when:

The accused resides abroad.
The accused is alleged to be avoiding investigation.
The complainant alleges flight risk.

Again, an LOC is not automatic in every 498A case.

How to Travel Abroad Safely During a 498A Case

Step 1: Check Bail Conditions

Read every line of the bail order.

Step 2: Inform Your Lawyer

Before booking travel.

Step 3: Seek Court Permission (If Required)

Many courts allow travel subject to conditions.

Step 4: Provide Travel Details

Such as:

Destination
Duration
Return date
Contact details

Step 5: Return Within Permitted Period

Violation can create serious complications.

Common Mistakes Accused Persons Make

Avoid These Mistakes

Assuming FIR means passport cancellation.
Travelling without checking bail conditions.
Concealing pending criminal cases in passport applications.
Ignoring court permission requirements.
Violating travel undertakings.
Assuming an NRI accused will automatically be arrested at the airport.

What Should You Do If You Need to Travel Urgently?

For employment, medical treatment, family emergencies, or business travel:

File an application before the appropriate court.
Explain the urgency.
Provide supporting documents.
Offer an undertaking to return.

Courts often consider genuine requests favourably.

Special Note for NRIs

NRIs should be particularly careful because:

Travel history may be scrutinized.
LOC requests may be made.
Presence during investigation may become an issue.
Immigration complications can arise if court orders are ignored.

Early legal strategy is especially important for overseas residents.

The Real Risk: Non-Compliance, Not the Passport Itself

The key takeaway

In most 498A cases, the passport itself is not the primary problem.

The real risks arise when an accused:

Ignores court directions
Violates bail conditions
Fails to appear
Travels without permission where required
Suppresses information from authorities

Practical Checklist

Before travelling or renewing a passport

Obtain copy of FIR.
Obtain copy of bail order.
Check for travel restrictions.
Confirm whether passport surrender was ordered.
Disclose pending case honestly in passport application.
Seek court permission if required.
Keep travel documents ready.
Return within permitted period.

Conclusion

Passport issues in 498A cases are often misunderstood. An FIR by itself does not automatically cancel or confiscate a passport. However, bail conditions, court directions, pending proceedings, and compliance with legal requirements can affect travel and passport-related decisions.

The safest approach is to check the court order, disclose pending proceedings honestly, and seek permission wherever required rather than relying on assumptions or panic-driven advice.

Post Views: 58

Ayush Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Ors 25 Jun 2026

Posted on July 6 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

The other aspect, in this case, is that the petitioner is an Advocate. He can be paid his fee by the Government, by a respectable man or a man who is not so respectable. An Advocate could be defending an accused who is indeed involved in a big scam or fraud but when fee is remitted by such an accused to his learned Counsel in account the money cannot be said to be proceeds of crime. It is the lawful remuneration of the learned counsel which would be duly earned after the engagement is discharged. If for the remittance of any sum of money, an Advocate’s account is frozen describing it as a cyber fraud or the money as proceeds of a cyber fraud or other crime it could become very difficult for Advocates to discharge their professional duties under the Advocates Act. The functioning of the Court itself would be embarrassed.
Let the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow file his own affidavit within two weeks on the issue indicating how seizure of an Advocate’s account, made by sundry officers of the Police, is to be dealt with so as not to interfere with dispensation of justice itself in Courts. It would be quite a different matter, if an Advocate is himself involved in a criminal offence and has credits of money to his account that are proceeds of his own crime.

Ayush Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Ors 25 Jun 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://lawtrend.in/advocates-fee-cannot-be-treated-as-proceeds-of-crime-merely-because-client-is-accused-allahabad-high-court/

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-advocate-professional-fee-accused-not-proceeds-of-crime-bank-freeze-539449

Index

Post Views: 122

Mohanlal Shamij Soni Vs UOI and Anr on 22 Feb 1991

Posted on July 6 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held that under section 311 of Cr.P.C. (read along with the Section 165 of Evidence Act), a Criminal Court has wide power to summon any person as witness, at any stage of the case, even after completion of defence evidence and argument stages.

From Para 9,

9. The very usage of the words such as ‘any court’, ‘at any stage’, or ‘of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings’, ‘any person’ and ‘any such person’ clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. However, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow for any discretion but it binds and compels the court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case.

Mohanlal Shamij Soni Vs UOI and Anr on 22 Feb 1991

Citations: [AIR 1991 SC 1346], [1991 CRILJ 1521], [1991 (1) CRIMES 818(SC)], [1991 (33) ECC 18], [1992 (61) ELT 521(SC)], [1991 (1) SCALE 401], [1991 SUPP (1) SCC 271], [1991 (2) UJ 43 (SC)], [1991 SCC(CRI) 595], [1992 CRIAPPR(SC) 73], [1991 (1) SCR 712], [1991 (1) GUJLH 11], [1991 (3) JT 17], [(1991) ALLCRIR 725], [(1992) SC CR R 51], [1991 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 286], [1992 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 421], [(1992) 1 CHANDCRIC 78], [(1991) 33 ECC 18], [(1991) 2 GUJ LR 974], [(1991) 3 RECCRIR 182], [(1991) MADLW(CRI) 284], [(1997) 68 ECR 783]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171510013/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac6be4b014971140ed29

Index

Post Views: 20

Sachin Arora Vs Manju Arora on 02 Jul 2026

Posted on July 4 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court was not interested to interfere with the Delhi High Court Judgment.

Sachin Arora Vs Manju Arora on 02 Jul 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-refuses-to-interfere-with-delhi-hc-order-allowing-wife-to-seek-husbands-hotel-cdr-records-to-prove-adultery-539935

The following is the impugned Delhi High Court Judgment. The husband may have to have a serious discussion with his Counsel at Family Court, where the Reply was filed with certain admissions. Thoroughly self-sabotaging style drafting! Now, his only shield is Cross Examination Stage to bring out the truth. Hope it is handled at least now professionally and properly.

From Para 19,

19. … Moreover, in his written statement filed before the learned Family Court, the petitioner had taken a totally contrary stand claiming that he had gone to Jaipur on an official trip along with his female colleague for which purpose two rooms were reserved in Hotel Fairmont. This in itself, he contends is sufficient to prima facie show that the petitioner in order to conceal his adulterous acts is trying to take contradictory stands before the learned Family Court to somehow prevent disclosure of the details regarding his stay in the hotel being well aware that this disclosure would in itself show adultery on his part. In support of his plea, he seeks to place to reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2385 and 2466 of 2018 titled K Srinivas Rao vs Nalam Naga Kamala.

From Para 32,

32. … Furthermore, what needs to be noted that the petitioner has taken contradictory stands regarding the presence of his lady friend in the hotel. While in his written statement he has stated that he was on an official trip to Jaipur, along with his female colleague and therefore, two rooms were booked for them in Hotel Fairmont, in response to the application he has claimed that he met the lady friend by chance in the hotel as she was also co-incidentally staying there. The respondent is the estranged wife of the petitioner who obviously does not has any direct evidence of her husband indulging in acts of adultery. By resort to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, she is, only trying to seek production of evidence which she reasonably believes will prove her charge of adultery which by its very nature can be inferred only from circumstances.

From Para 39,

39. From the aforesaid, it is evident that it has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the right to privacy, as enshrined under Article 21, is not an absolute right. In the present case, the Court has on the one side, a husband who is taking contradictory stands in his pleadings…

Sachin Arora Vs Manju Arora on 10 May 2023

Post Views: 64

Payal Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 26 Nov 2024

Posted on July 2 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 22,

22. The fact that the present complaint which ultimately culminated in the impugned order was filed by the complainant subsequent to the grant of divorce between the first accused and the complainant’s daughter, is a fact discernible and indisputable. This had occurred in Canada. A perusal of the final report would reveal that even after the investigation no material whatsoever worthy to connect the appellant with the offences was seen collected. Therefore, the question is whether the vague, and at the same time, highly exaggerated versions of FIR and the proceedings subsequent thereto can be permitted to be proceeded against accused Nos.5 and 6. In short, on a careful consideration of FIR and the final report and materials we have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie that they would constitute the alleged offences against the accused No.6.

From Para 23,

23. A scanning of the FIR and the subsequently filed final report would reveal that the allegation against accused No.5, who is the wife of accused No.6, are also of the same nature. It is relevant to note that she is related to the husband of complainant’s daughter only through her marriage with cousin brother of the first accused viz., accused No.6. When the subject FIR and all further proceedings pursuant therefrom were quashed against the said cousin brother viz., accused No.6, the same reasons must apply to the case of accused No.5 as well. We are of the considered view that the High Court ought to have interfered and quashed the subject FIR and all other proceedings therefrom in relation to accused No.5 viz., the wife of accused No.6 as well. To secure interest of justice in the circumstances obtained, we are of the considered view that filing of the chargesheet cannot be a reason for interfering with impugned order in respect of accused No.6 or rejecting the prayer of accused No.5 to quash the proceedings and to make them to argue or to raise the legal and factual issues at the stage of framing of the charges. It is evident that making them to face the trial based on the allegations or accusation as referred above would be nothing but an abuse of process of court.

Payal Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 26 Nov 2024

Citations: [2024 INSC 896]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101620228/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67458986e8c0441261878a34

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/payal-sharma-v-state-of-punjab-2024-insc-896-over-implication-of-close-relatives-of-husband-in-alleged-dowry-cases-1559200

https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/dowry-harassment-cases-supreme-court-stresses-courts-duty-check-exaggerated-versions

https://testbook.com/recent-judgements/payal-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab

PAYAL SHARMA V. STATE OF PUNJAB & Anr, (26 November 2024)

Karnataka High Court relied on this Judgment in Crl.Pet.No.13296/2024 to grant interim stay.

Index of Quash Judgements is here.

Post Views: 18

Antics of Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils

Posted on July 1 by ShadesOfKnife

Despite being a statutory bodies, there are many instances where the Bar Council of India or various State Bar Councils has crossed their statutory limits and embarked on a journey which is legally called as Colourable exercise of power granted by Parliament to them. The following is just a small list of cases that came to my notice.

From 1996 – 2000:

Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani Vs Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 8 Apr 1996 [SC: Cannot practice as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as a medical practitioner who does not want to give up his medical practice but wants simultaneously to practice law]

From 2016 – 2020:

Rishabh Duggal vs Bar Council of India on 12 Mar 2019 [SC: BCI imposed age limit]
Bar Council of Kerala Vs T.Koshy on 12 Apr 2018 [KerHC: Bar Council of Kerala does not have power to prescribe any fee for the enrolment, either in the form of enrolment fee or special fee]
Braj Mohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 11 Sep 2018 [MPHC: A person who is not convicted but merely accused cannot be denied entry into the State Bar Council rolls]
Bar Council of Kerala Vs Raju Y and Anr on 04 Jan 2019 [SC: Bar Council (of any State or India) do not have power to prescribe any fee for the enrolment, either in the form of enrolment fee or special fee.]

From 2021 – 2025:

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 10 Feb 2023 [SC: BCI is empowered to conduct AIBE and it is a valid exam]
Are State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Gaps in academics during Enrollment? [SC: Bar Council of AP charged me an additional Rs.7000/- as fees towards the gap in my academic, before enrollment and my case was transferred to Supreme Court and clubbed with many other such cases and eventually SCI held that Bar Councils cannot charge fees under any name beyond what is permitted in Advocates Act, 1961]

From 2026 – 2030:

Rajashekar Vs BCI and Anr on 27 Oct 2025 [KarHC: Persons can be admitted as advocates on a State roll even if they completed LL.B. outside the State]
Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026 [TelHC: Membership with a Bar Association is not mandatory to practice Law in the State]
Are BCI and State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Transfer of Enrollment? []

MASTER INDEX is here.

Post Views: 27

Rajashekar Vs BCI and Anr on 27 Oct 2025

Posted on July 1 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru held as follows,

From Para 3,

3. On an enquiry with the learned counsel appearing for Bar Council of India, as to whether there is any restriction for such enrolment, she submits that there is no such restriction and any person who has passed out of any Law colleges across the country could be registered with the State Bar council where such person intends to practice in terms of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. She further submits that it is only if transfer of registration is required to be done, certain procedures would be required to be followed.

From Para 5,

5. In view of the said submission, it being clear that the petitioner has passed out of a college which is affiliated to respondent No.1 and there being no restriction or requirement for the State Bar Council to register only persons who have passed out within that particular State and in view of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. A mandamus is issued to respondent No.2 to enroll the petitioner as an advocate on its roll as per the Advocates Act, 1961, on the next enrolment date.
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to, in future, take into consideration any application filed by any student who has passed out in Law in any other State so long as the verification process of the certificate issued is done in a proper manner.

Rajashekar Vs BCI and Anr on 27 Oct 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38447320/

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-ruling-enrolment-of-law-graduates-from-other-states-309383

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/karnataka-high-court/sri-rajashekar-v-bar-council-of-india-2025khc42704-advocate-with-law-degree-from-outside-state-can-enroll-1597580

Law Graduates From Any State Can Enroll With Any Bar Council in India: Karnataka High Court

Index of Bar Council Antics is here.

Post Views: 25

Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026

Posted on July 1 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Para 4.1,

4.1 The petitioner, appearing in person, contends that Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the provisions of the Act, 1961, particularly Sections 22, 30, and 33. It is argued that the statutory scheme unequivocally confers upon an enrolled Advocate the right to practice law, and such right is neither conditional nor subject to compulsory membership in any Bar Association.

From Para 4.4,

4.4. The petitioner further contends that the impugned rule violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the freedom to form associations inherently includes the right not to associate, as recognized in Damayanti Naranga v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 678. Therefore, any compulsion to join a Bar Association infringes this constitutional guarantee.

From Para 5.2,

5.2. The respondents argue that the impugned rules, including Rule 6.1, are within the statutory framework and are intended to regulate and identify practicing Advocates, as well as to ensure effective implementation of welfare schemes. It is specifically contended that Rule 6 does not mandate compulsory membership in any Bar Association; rather, it provides an option. An Advocate may either become a member of a recognized Bar Association or, alternatively, intimate the State Bar Council regarding non-membership and indicate how he or she proposes to avail welfare benefits.

From Para 5.4,

5.4. The respondents also contend that the requirement of certification and verification is intended solely to identify genuine practitioners and facilitate welfare distribution. There is no violation of Article 19, as the rules neither compel association membership nor restrict the right to practice.

From Para 8,

8. At the outset, Sections 29, 30, and 33 of the Act, 1961 unequivocally recognize Advocates as the only class of persons entitled to practice law, subject to enrolment under the Act. The statutory scheme does not expressly mandate membership in any Bar Association as a condition precedent to the exercise of such right.

From Paras 12 and 13,

12. A plain reading of Rule 6 indicates that membership in a Bar Association is not mandatory. The provision merely affords an option to an Advocate either to join a Bar Association or, in the alternative, to intimate the State Bar Council regarding such non-membership for the purpose of availing welfare benefits. When construed in this manner, the rule can be sustained as a regulatory measure. Notably, the respondents have also urged that the rule be interpreted in this light.
13. In such circumstances, the requirement would fall within the ambit of Sections 6, 7, and 49(1)(ah) of the Act, 1961, as a condition governing the right to practice, aimed at identifying genuine practitioners and facilitating the implementation of welfare schemes.

Finally from Para 17,

17. In view of the foregoing analysis, Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is read down to the following extent:
a) Membership in a Bar Association shall be purely voluntary;
b) Non-membership shall not disentitle or restrict an Advocate from practicing law;
c) Bar Associations shall not exercise any determinative or regulatory control over the right to practice.

Call to Action:

18. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1, namely the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, is directed to issue appropriate clarifications to all State Bar Councils. The requirement of certification and verification shall be implemented solely as a regulatory mechanism for availing welfare measures and not as a means of imposing coercive conditions.

Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 86]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137307844/

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-bar-associations-exercise-regulatory-control-advocate-right-to-practice-538287

https://www.verdictum.in/telangana-high-court/vijay-gopal-v-bar-council-of-india-anr-bar-council-of-india-membership-1613590

Index of Bar Council Antics is here.

Post Views: 38

Bhawna Rani Vs Gurdeep Singh on 27 Nov 2025

Posted on June 30 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-husband in the cases of Sheetal Patil (supra), Alipka @ Lokesh (supra) and Kanchan (supra) are that of High Courts of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Bombay, respectively. Since two Division Bench judgments of this Court have categorically held that once an appeal is filed within the period of limitation and after filing thereof contracting of a second marriage by the husband tantamounts to contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-husband deserves to be rejected. Further, as noticed above, their Lordships in the case of N. Rajendran (supra) have also held that the bar on re-marriage under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 after divorce will apply on mere filing of an appeal.

From Para 16 (the bullshit arises here; no one knows the legal mandate of Audi Alterum Partem)

16. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has not been able to point out to any case law to the contrary that a marriage contracted in contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would not amount to civil contempt. The reliance made by learned counsel for respondent-husband to the judgment in the case of Suresh (supra) would also not come to his aid as the same does not deal with the contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

From Para 17,

17. As discussed above, not only the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation but the respondent-husband also appears to have evaded the service of notice in the appeal as he remained unserved on the same very address i.e. ‘House No.41, Pooja Vihar, Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala’, wherein he had also been served in FAO-M-5170-2018, which was the same address given by him in the divorce petition filed by him. In his reply the respondent-husband has categorically admitted that after the marriage was dissolved vide a decree of divorce dated 02.03.2020, he contracted a second marriage on 03.01.2021. The only plea taken by the respondent-husband is that he was never served and that he gained knowledge about the pendency of FAO-1935-2020 on 23.02.2021. It has further been stated that there cannot be endless time limit for the spouse not to re-marry and that the respondent-husband re-married only after the grant of decree of divorce and that the appeal pending before this Court has still not been decided. In a nutshell, in his reply the respondent-husband, instead of tendering an unqualified apology, has tried to contest his act of solemnizing the second marriage during the pendency of the above appeal and stay having been granted therein. It is only when this fact was pointed out by this Court to learned counsel for the respondent-husband that an affidavit was filed along with CM-22461-CII-2025 tendering an unqualified apology. However, the apology in the present case cannot be accepted for the reason that there has been willful contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Even if the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-husband as regards the fact that respondent-husband was not served in the appeal is to be taken on its face value, he admittedly never made inquiries within the prescribed period of limitation regarding filing of the appeal.

From Para 21, (Why the fish does husband want anything to do with reconciliation, after he won his divorce case on merits against the OP?)

21. The act and conduct of the respondent-husband is such that the clock cannot be put back and the damage which has ensued cannot be rectified. Virtually, the conduct of respondent-husband has rendered the appeal filed by the petitioner-wife infructuous and the petitioner-wife being remediless. The petitioner-wife and her daughter have even missed out the chance to partake in any reconciliation process.

Note: I just wish and pray that this BS gets thrown out of window at Supreme Court.

Bhawna Rani Vs Gurdeep Singh on 27 Nov 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Contempt of Court decisions is here.

Post Views: 27