What’s in Today’s Article?

• Advocates Act Latest Bill
• Introduction
• Key Provisions and Controversies
• Reasons for the Withdrawal of the Bill
• Future Prospects and The Way Forward
• Conclusion
• Contentious Amendments to the Advocates Act FAQs
   

Advocates Act Latest Bill 

• On February 22, 2025, the Centre withdrew the contentious Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, stating that a revised version incorporating public feedback would be introduced.

Introduction

• The Union Ministry of Law and Justice withdrew the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, following strong opposition from the legal community.
• The Bill sought to amend the Advocates Act, 1961, which governs the legal profession in India.
• However, lawyers and the Bar Council of India (BCI) raised concerns that the amendments would undermine the independence of legal institutions, restrict protests, and give excessive power to the government.
• In response to nationwide strikes and legal representations, the government decided to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the proposed changes.

Key Provisions and Controversies

• Government Influence Over the Bar Council of India (BCI)
  • The Bill proposed allowing the central government to nominate up to three members to the BCI.
  • Currently, the BCI is an independent body that regulates the legal profession in India.
  • Critics argued that government-appointed members could compromise the council’s autonomy and lead to political interference in legal matters.
  • Additionally, the proposed Section 49B would have empowered the central government to issue directions to the BCI, effectively giving it control over key decisions.
  • The BCI strongly opposed this provision, stating that it would erode the self-regulatory nature of the legal profession.
• Restrictions on Lawyers' Right to Protest
  • One of the most contentious provisions was Section 35A, which aimed to ban strikes and boycotts by lawyers.
  • It stated that any form of abstention from work, or obstruction in court functioning, would be considered misconduct, punishable under the Advocates Act.
  • Lawyers strongly opposed this provision, arguing that the right to protest is fundamental in a democracy.
  • They highlighted past cases where lawyers used strikes to oppose unjust laws and administrative issues. Critics pointed out that while excessive strikes could delay justice, an outright ban would be unjustified.
• Entry of Foreign Law Firms and Lawyers
  • The Bill sought to empower the central government to regulate the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers into India.
  • The Supreme Court had earlier ruled in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018)that foreign lawyers could offer legal advice on a temporary basis but could not practice law in India.
  • In 2023, the BCI introduced rules allowing foreign law firms to operate in areas such as international arbitration, but they remained barred from court litigation.
  • The Bill would have transferred this regulatory power from the BCI to the government, raising concerns about its impact on Indian lawyers.
• Expanded Definition of 'Legal Practitioner'
  • The Bill proposed broadening the definition of ‘legal practitioner’ to include corporate lawyers and lawyers associated with foreign law firms.
  • Traditionally, this definition only included practicing advocates, pleaders, and revenue agents. The BCI opposed this move, arguing that it would dilute professional standards and create legal ambiguities.
• New Misconduct Provisions and Penalties
  • The Bill introduced additional provisions on lawyer misconduct, including:
  • Allowing clients to file misconduct complaints against lawyers if they faced financial loss due to legal proceedings.
  • Imposing monetary fines of up to ₹3 lakh on advocates found guilty of misconduct.
  • Allowing state bar councils to impose fines of ₹50,000 on clients who file frivolous complaints.
  • Lawyers argued that holding them financially liable for client losses was unfair, as legal outcomes depend on judicial decisions, not just advocacy.

Reasons for the Withdrawal of the Bill

• Strong Opposition from the Legal Community – The BCI, state bar councils, and legal associations across the country opposed the Bill, calling it an attack on professional independence.
• Nationwide Strikes and Court Boycotts – Lawyers staged protests in various states, leading to disruptions in judicial proceedings.
• Concerns Over Constitutional Rights – Many legal experts argued that provisions restricting strikes and protests violated fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression).
• Bar Council of India’s Direct Intervention – The BCI wrote to the government, warning that the Bill would dismantle the independence of legal institutions.

Future Prospects and The Way Forward

• While the Bill has been withdrawn, the government has stated that it will introduce a revised draft after consultations with stakeholders. Key areas for reconsideration include:
  • Ensuring the BCI remains independent and self-regulated.
  • Balancing the right to protest with judicial efficiency.
  • Revisiting foreign law firm regulations in consultation with legal bodies.
  • Refining the definition of legal practitioners to avoid ambiguity.
• Legal experts suggest that future amendments should focus on improving legal education, streamlining disciplinary mechanisms, and enhancing access to justice while maintaining the autonomy of the legal profession.

Conclusion

• The withdrawal of the Advocates (Amendment) Bill highlights the importance of protecting the independence of the legal profession.
• While legal reforms are necessary, they must be framed in consultation with legal stakeholders to ensure they strengthen, rather than weaken, the judiciary.
• The government’s decision to reconsider the Bill reflects a recognition of these concerns. Future discussions must aim for a balanced approach that upholds legal ethics while promoting judicial efficiency.

Contentious Amendments to the Advocates Act FAQs

Q1. Why was the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 withdrawn?

Ans. The Bill was withdrawn due to strong opposition from lawyers, concerns over government interference, and the proposed restrictions on legal protests.

Q2. How would the Bill have impacted the Bar Council of India (BCI)?

Ans. It would have allowed the government to nominate members and issue directions to the BCI, reducing its autonomy.

Q3. What were the objections regarding the ban on lawyer strikes?

Ans. Lawyers argued that banning strikes violated their constitutional right to protest and could silence dissent in the legal profession.

Q4. What changes did the Bill propose regarding foreign law firms?

Ans. The Bill sought to transfer regulatory power from the BCI to the central government, raising concerns about control over foreign legal practitioners in India.

Q5. What is the next step after the withdrawal of the Bill?

Ans. The government has stated that it will introduce a revised version after consulting stakeholders, ensuring that legal reforms address concerns raised by the legal community.
Source: TH | IE

What’s in Today’s Article?

• UGC Caste Discrimination Rules Latest News
• Caste-Based Discrimination in Indian Universities
• UGC’s New Draft Regulations Empower It to Act Against Discrimination in Universities
• UGC Caste Discrimination Rules FAQs

UGC Caste Discrimination Rules Latest News

• The Union government informed the Supreme Court that new UGC regulations will empower it to de-recognise higher education institutions failing to prevent discrimination, particularly based on religion or caste.

Caste-Based Discrimination in Indian Universities

• Caste-based discrimination in Indian universities refers to systemic exclusion, harassment, and bias faced by students from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). 
• This manifests in academic grading, social ostracization, denial of opportunities, and even psychological harassment, often leading to dropouts or severe mental distress.

Statistics

• Discrimination in IITs
  • A 2021 study by the Forum Against Oppression of SC/STs reported that 70% of Dalit and Adivasi students in IITs faced caste discrimination.
  • They faced discrimination from faculty members, including unfair grading and exclusion from academic projects.
• Admissions
  • In 2015–2019, only 1.6% of PhD candidates at IIT-Bombay were from the ST category, 7.5% from the SC category, and 19.2% from the OBC category. 
• Placements 
  • A field experiment found that low-caste applicants need to send 20 percent more resumes than high-caste applicants to get the same callback.
• Suicides
  • As per the ministry of education, between 2014 and 2021, over 122 student suicides in higher education institutions were reported, a significant proportion belonging to marginalized communities.

Notable Examples

• Rohith Vemula (2016): A Ph.D. scholar from the University of Hyderabad, who died by suicide, alleging caste discrimination and institutional harassment.
• Payal Tadvi (2019): A tribal medical student from Mumbai, who ended her life due to casteist bullying by senior doctors.
• Reports of caste-based seating arrangements in universities and social exclusion from hostels and student groups persist.

Legal Mechanism to Address Caste Discrimination

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Provides legal protection against caste-based violence and discrimination.
• The University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines: Mandates universities to establish anti-discrimination cells to address caste bias.
• Article 15 & 17 of the Indian Constitution: Prohibits caste-based discrimination and untouchability in all forms.
• Reservation Policy: Ensures representation of SC/ST/OBC students in admissions, faculty positions, and scholarships.

Challenges

• Lack of SC, ST, and OBC faculty members contributes to student alienation. 
  • Adequate representation could provide mentorship and support to marginalized students.
• Many IITs, IIMs, and law schools failed to respond to UGC’s request for data on Equal Opportunity Cells. 
  • Reports indicate that 40% of universities and 80% of colleges have not provided compliance details.
• SC has acknowledged the low compliance rate and stressed the need for stronger enforcement.

Way Forward

• Need to change flawed notion of meritocracy
  • The claim that reservations dilute merit is a common but baseless argument. 
  • Sociologists argue that so-called "merit" is simply the conversion of historical caste privilege into modern social capital. 
  • The Supreme Court in 2022 (Neil Aurelio Nunes vs Union of India) affirmed that reservation enhances merit by ensuring equitable representation.
• Legal Framework: The UGC should criminalize caste discrimination in educational institutions, similar to laws against ragging and sexual harassment.
• Institutional Support: The government must implement grievance redressal mechanisms, diversity training, and pedagogical strategies to promote inclusion.
• Awareness and Structural Changes: Caste annihilation workshops and affirmative action policies must be reinforced to foster equitable campuses.

Conclusion

• As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated, “Equality may be a fiction, but nonetheless, one must accept it as a governing principle.” 
• To ensure true inclusivity in Indian academia, proactive steps must be taken to dismantle caste-based barriers and create a just, representative educational system.

UGC’s New Draft Regulations Empower It to Act Against Discrimination in Universities

• The Union govt informed the Supreme Court that the draft UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025 would strengthen the UGC’s authority to tackle caste and religion-based discrimination. 

Petition Against Caste Discrimination in Universities

• The court was hearing a petition filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died by suicide after facing caste discrimination. 
• The petition highlighted rampant caste bias in higher education institutions (HEIs), urging the Supreme Court to intervene.

Key Provisions of the Draft Regulations

• Objective: Eradication of discrimination based on caste, religion, race, gender, or economic background.
• Punitive Actions: HEIs failing to comply may face de-recognition, funding restrictions (Section 12B of the UGC Act), and additional penalties.
• Equity Committees: Proposed in HEIs, consisting of faculty, students, and civil society members, with mandatory SC/ST and female representation.

UGC Caste Discrimination Rules FAQs

Q1. What do UGC’s new draft regulations aim to address?

Ans. UGC’s draft rules seek to prevent caste-based discrimination in universities and impose penalties on non-compliant institutions.

Q2. How can universities be penalized under the new UGC rules?

Ans. Higher education institutions may face de-recognition, funding cuts, and penalties if they fail to prevent caste discrimination.

Q3. Why was the Supreme Court petition filed against caste bias in universities?

Ans. The petition was filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both victims of caste discrimination.

Q4. What mechanisms are proposed to tackle caste discrimination in universities?

Ans. UGC suggests equity committees with SC/ST representation, grievance redressal cells, and stricter penalties for institutions violating norms.

Q5. How does caste discrimination affect students in Indian universities?

Ans. It leads to academic exclusion, mental distress, reduced opportunities, and has even resulted in student suicides in some cases.

Source: TH | IT | TNM

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Latest News
• Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Background
• Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Key Challenges Identified
• Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Recommendations and Way Forward
• Conclusion
• Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System FAQ’s

Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Latest News

• A report by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj panel, chaired by former Mines Secretary Sushil Kumar, has highlighted various challenges that prevent Elected Women Representatives (EWRs) from exercising their authority independently. 
• These challenges include socio-cultural norms, patriarchal biases, lack of deterrent laws, and inadequate political experience. 
• The report recommends policy interventions, structural reforms, and strict penalties to curb the practice of 'Pradhan Pati', 'Sarpanch Pati', or 'Mukhiya Pati'.

Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Background

• The committee was formed in September 2023 following a Supreme Court order (July 6, 2023).
• It conducted four regional workshops, engaging representatives from 14 states, including MP, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, UP, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, etc.
• The findings are based on interactions with state governments, EWRs, and local stakeholders.

Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Key Challenges Identified

• Lack of political experience:
  • Newly elected women representatives often lack exposure and experience.
  • They struggle to discharge responsibilities effectively at different levels of the Panchayati Raj system, especially at the Gram Panchayat level.
• Gender-based discrimination:
  • Women representatives are often ignored in official and informal meetings.
  • Male elected representatives and officials prefer interacting with male counterparts.
  • This reinforces the dominance of male proxies and limits women's leadership roles.
• Patriarchal socio-cultural norms:
  • Rural society continues to follow traditional gender roles and restrictive norms such as 'purdah'.
  • Women are discouraged from speaking in male-dominated gatherings, including panchayat meetings. These practices limit their participation in governance.
• Political pressure and threats:
  • Women representatives face coercion, threats, and sometimes violence from political opponents and dominant groups.
  • 'No Confidence Motion' is often misused as a tactic to remove them from office.
• Socio-economic and cultural disadvantages:
  • Many EWRs belong to marginalized communities (SC/ST/Minorities/Disabled), increasing their vulnerabilities.
  • The burden of balancing domestic and political responsibilities limits their ability to function effectively.
  • Due to societal norms and lack of confidence, they hesitate in making financial decisions independently.
• Lack of training and mentorship:
  • Women representatives have limited access to training programs that can enhance their leadership skills.
  • Absence of mentorship restricts their ability to navigate political challenges.
• Rotational reservation system:
  • The five-year term for reserved seats is too short for women to gain experience and establish themselves as leaders.
  • It disrupts continuity in governance and weakens women's long-term political impact.
• Weak legal deterrence:
  • Existing legal provisions to penalize male relatives acting as proxies are insufficient.
  • Male relatives continue to control decision-making, undermining the de jure authority of EWRs.

Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System Recommendations and Way Forward

• Policy interventions: Strengthen training programs and provide legal awareness to EWRs.
• Structural reforms: Extend the duration of reservation to ensure leadership continuity.
• Exemplary penalties: Enforce strict laws against male relatives functioning as proxies.
• Capacity building: Enhance mentorship and skill development initiatives for women leaders.
• Awareness campaigns: Promote gender sensitization at all levels of governance.

Conclusion

• The report underscores the urgent need to address systemic challenges that hinder women's effective participation in local governance. 
• By implementing the recommended reforms, the government can empower EWRs, ensuring their constitutional rights and leadership roles are upheld in the Panchayati Raj system.

Women Representation in Panchayati Raj System FAQs

Q1. What are the key challenges faced by Elected Women Representatives (EWRs) in the Panchayati Raj system?

Ans. The challenges include lack of political experience, gender-based discrimination, patriarchal socio-cultural norms, political pressure, socio-economic disadvantages, lack of training, etc.

Q2. How do socio-cultural norms and patriarchal practices hinder the effective functioning of women representatives in local governance?

Ans. Deep-rooted patriarchal mindsets, restrictive customs like 'purdah', and social conditioning discourage women from speaking in public and participating in decision-making processes.

Q3. Why is the rotational reservation system for women in Panchayati Raj institutions considered a challenge?

Ans. A five-year term is too short for women to develop leadership skills, gain political experience, and establish long-term governance strategies, limiting their effectiveness.

Q4. What are the major recommendations made by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj panel to strengthen the role of EWRs?

Ans. The panel suggests policy interventions, structural reforms, strict penalties for proxy governance, enhanced capacity-building programs, etc.

Q5. Why is the absence of strong deterrent laws a critical issue in preventing male relatives from acting as proxies for EWRs?

Ans. Weak legal enforcement allows male relatives to unofficially control decision-making, undermining the constitutional mandate of women’s representation in local governance.

Source: IE