Prasoon Kumar Mishra

The provision of law regarding disentitle an advocate suffering from Covid-19 to practice is given in Chapter III , condition to right to practice under its Rule 8 of Bar Council of India Rules, which is stated below. 8. No advocate shall be entitled to practice if in the opinion of the Council he is suffering fro such contagious disease as make the practice of law a hazard to the health of others. This disqualification shall last for such period as the council direct from time to time.                                                                               Thus Bar Council entitled to disqualify...

To remove the difficulties of the litigants for filing petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings arising out of COVID-19 virus in the country, Supreme Court has taken cognizance SUO MOTU   in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No(s).3/2020 comprising CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE  ,  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO   and   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT and passed the order dated 23-03-2020 and ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. Supreme Court passed this order exercising   power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.     ...

The Chief Justice of India has some specific power apart from other judges of the Supreme Court to have absolute discretion to allocate day to day legal work among the other judges.   In recent decision the Supreme   refused to take away the chief justice’s power to assign cases to any bench and give it to the collegium — the top five judges in terms of seniority in the court — saying it would create more confusion and delays. This power had come under much public scrutiny after the four senior most judges went public with their grievances over the way sensitive political cases were being assigned to ‘junior judges’. CJI Dipak Misra had shuffled the roster of business in the wake of the controversy to sort out the in-house differences. The issue, however, continued to simmer with several PILs raising the matter of whether the CJI could still deal with a case when the allegations were against himself. This despite the CJI, at a head of a five-judge bench, reaffirming his ...