Pairokar

  The appearance of Mamata Banerjee in the robes of an advocate at the Calcutta High Court on the 14th of May is very surprising. She may be a law graduate or even enrolled as an advocate with the State Bar Council, but if she has had her licence restored by the State Bar Council in four days, that would be truly surprising. Even the Bar Council of India has sought certified copies of the original records relating to Mamata Banerjee from the State Advocate’s Roll. Until the 8th of May, she remained the Chief Minister of the State. The Governor then dismissed her government, as neither she nor her party had been returned to power. As an MLA or MP, she could certainly have practised, but as a minister, she could not, as she would then be a public servant. Earlier, before the assembly elections, she appeared before the Supreme Court, but not as a lawyer, rather in a personal capacity. She was allowed to address the court for half an hour, but it was difficult to make head or tail of...

    The Union Cabinet has recently approved a proposal to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38. The proposal is to be implemented through the bill, which would amend the existing 1956 law governing the Court’s sanctioned strength. The stated reasons, as published in the newspapers, are rising pendency of cases (reported to be around 92,000–93,000 cases), the need for quicker disposal of matters, enabling more Constitution Benches and regular benches to function simultaneously. This would be the first increase since 2019, when the strength was raised from 32 to 34. In fact, even this number of 38 will be inadequate, which should be further increased, as now there is no dearth of space or infrastructure. However, the pendency cannot be reduced only by increasing the strength of judges, so long as Artificial Intelligence is not used effectively. For this purpose, the judges, staff members and advocates should be properly train...

  It is a troubling anomaly that, more than a month after tendering his resignation on April 9, 2026, Justice Yashwant Varma remains a judge of the Allahabad High Court on paper. While his resignation awaits formal acceptance by the President, the shadows of the March 2025 discovery—unaccounted, half-burnt currency found at his residence—continue to loom over the integrity of the higher judiciary. The Investigative Trail The evidence against Justice Varma is substantial. Following a fire at his official residence, an In-house Enquiry Committee found "strong evidence" that the judge exercised "tacit or active control" over the storeroom where the cash was discovered. When the judge refused to resign voluntarily in May 2025, the matter escalated to Parliament. On August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted an impeachment motion backed by over 140 MPs and constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 . Justice Varma’s respons...

  There is little doubt that, in the last few days, Mamata Banerjee has gone completely insane. She urgently needs proper mental treatment. Although earlier she was also known for her bizarre behaviour, which was considered a sign of her struggling nature. A politician can indeed sink to any level to gain and retain power, but it is difficult to imagine that a politician like Mamata Banerjee could reach the lowest ebb in public life, and even after being comprehensively defeated at the hustings, refuse to vacate the post of Chief Minister. She talks very highly of morality, constitution and compassion, but her actions are entirely contrary to what she preaches. In fact, there is a world of difference between what she says and what she does. She contested the election in the name of constitutional democracy, but now, very shockingly, refuses to step down after her and her party’s defeat in the elections. Thanks to the sagacity of the Election Commission of India and the Central forc...

  The decision of the Supreme Court’s Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Examination Committee not to hold the AoR Examination in 2026 is deeply disappointing and difficult to justify. The reason reportedly offered—that the existing number of AoRs is already adequate—is flimsy, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of fairness and professional opportunity. The AoR system is not merely an internal administrative arrangement. It is the gateway through which advocates earn the right to independently file and conduct matters before the Supreme Court. Closing that gateway for an entire year amounts to denying deserving lawyers an opportunity they have spent years preparing for. The numbers themselves tell a different story. About twenty-five years ago, only 10 to 15 candidates would pass the examination annually. Today, hundreds qualify. In 2024, more than 350 candidates cleared the examination out of nearly 1,200 who appeared. In 2025, only 207 passed out of more than 1,550 candidates. T...

  An advocate, Vaibhav Singh, has filed a contempt of court petition in the Delhi High Court against some people for uploading reels of Arvind Kejriwal's arguments before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. Firstly, this petition should not have been filed because it runs counter to transparency in the court, unless, of course, it has not been edited dishonestly. There has been a long movement for the live streaming of the court proceedings of all the courts, because in that case, the clients and general public can watch what is going on in the courts. If the live streaming of the Parliament and assemblies can be managed, why can't the same be done for the courts? Thankfully, the Supreme Court of India made a historic decision on the live streaming of its proceedings. Every difficulty brings certain good things along with it. Thus, we find that Covid-19 brought virtual hearings for cases, which proved to be an immense blessing in disguise. Therefore, the very filing of the contemp...