- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Centre Introduces Bill to Amend Advocates Act: Seeks to Punish ‘Touts’
Centre Introduces Bill to Amend Advocates Act: Seeks to Punish ‘Touts’
The Central Government has introduced the Advocate (Amendment) Bill, 2023 to amend Advocates Act, 1961, in the current monsoon session.
On 31st July, 2023 it was listed before the Rajya Sabha for introduction, however due to the protest and disruption from opposition for Manipur violence, the house was adjourned for the day without taking any legislative matter.
The major changes which the Bill aims is to make the act of ‘Tout’ punishable and repeal certain provisions of Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 which have become obsolete.
The statement of object and reasons of the Bill reads, “All the aspects which are dealt with in the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 are already covered under the Advocates Act, 1961 except the matter relating to 'touts'. All sections of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, except sections 1, 3 and 36 have been repealed vide clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 50 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”
The Law Commission of India in its Report No. 249 titled, “Obsolete Laws: Warranting Immediate Repeal (Second Interim Report)' has also recommended repealing of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 after making suitable amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961,” it adds.
The Bill introduces Section 45A, “Power to frame and publish lists of touts”, in the Act. It states that, a person who acts a tout whilst his name is included in any such list shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
‘Tout’ is defined in the Bill, as a person:
(i) who procures, in consideration of any remuneration moving from any legal practitioner, the employment of the legal practitioner in any legal business; or who proposes to any legal practitioner or to any person interested in any legal business to procure, in consideration of any remuneration moving from either of them, the employment of the legal practitioner in such business; or.
(ii) who for the purposes of such procurement frequents the precincts of Civil or Criminal Courts or of revenue-offices, or railway stations, landing stages, lodging places or other places of public resort.
The new Section grants power to High Court, District Judge, Sessions Judge, District Magistrate, and every Revenue-officer, not being below the rank of a Collector of a district to frame and publish lists of persons proved to their satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of any subordinate Court by ‘evidence of general repute’ or habitually act as touts. The list can also be amended from time to time.
Additionally, the bill elucidates that the passing of a resolution, declaring any person to be or not to be a tout, by a majority of the members present at a meeting, specially convened for the purpose, of an association of persons entitled to practice as legal practitioners in any Court or revenue office, ‘shall be evidence of the general repute.’
The provision also gives opportunity to every person to show cause against inclusion of their names before taking the final decision.
It also amends Section 50 of the Act, to repeal Sections 1,3 and 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 on the date when Section 45-A, ‘Power to frame and publish lists of touts,’ will come into force.