38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Legal Insiders

Delhi Bar Council Temporarily Suspends the licence of a Lawyer for Advertising his Contact Details

By Dev Kumar Patel      24 November, 2020 04:17 PM      0 Comments
Delhi Bar Council Temporarily Suspends the licence of a Lawyer for Advertising his Contact Details

Adv. Shakeel Khan, who is enrolled (Enrollment No. D/904/1994) as an Advocate at The Bar Council of Delhi was alleged of advertising himself as a specialist in divorce and court matters, by pasting his mobile number on the public walls of South Delhi.

The matter soon came to the notice of The Bar Council of Delhi. The Council temporarily suspended  the license of practice of Adv. Shakeel Khan, by its order on 23 November 2020. 

The Council observed that there was "gross violation" of Rule 36 to Section IV (Duty to Colleagues) of Chapter II (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette) of Part VI (Rules Governing Advocates) of the BCI Rules, as was published in the Indian Gazette on 6 September 1975, in its original form. Rule 36 reads as follows:

Rule 36:  An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned. His sign-board or name-plate should be of a reasonable size. The sign-board or name-plate or stationery should not indicate that he is or has been President or Member of a Bar Council or of any Association or that he has been associated with any person or organisation or with any particular cause or matter or that he specialises in any particular type of worker or that he has been a Judge or an Advocate General.

On a bare perusal of the Rule 36, it may be learnt that it infers an almost complete disallowance to advertisement by advocates.

The Bar Council of Delhi also observed that Khan is said to have violated the provisions of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007.

Section 3 of the Act states that whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.

The staff of Bar Council of Delhi also contacted Mr. Shakeel Khan on his mobile number, which prima-facie proves that Mr. Shakeel Khan has committed professional misconduct or other misconduct. In the light of facts and circumstances, the Council has suspended Khan from practicing as an Advocate for a period of 8 weeks with immediate effect and in the meanwhile, a notice has been issued to him to show cause why his name be not removed permanently from the rolls of Bar Council of Delhi. Last year also, the BCD had cautioned all Advocates registered with it against advertising their services and soliciting work. 

Earlier, the bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Honble Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Honble Justices N. Subhash Reddy and A.S. Bopanna, on 14 July 2020 issued a notice to the Bar Council of India, in response to a plea to allow advocates to advertise on several fora till March 2021, considering the impediments of the COVID - 19 lockdown(Charanjeet Chanderpal v. Bar Council of India & Ors., W.P. (Civil) No. 627 of 2020). But several other State Bar Councils have reprimanded the advertisement of legal services and have taken suo moto strict disciplinary action against the advocates who have advertised their services.                       



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

sc-sets-aside-ngt-order-for-temple-demolition-holds-tribunal-has-no-jurisdiction-over-encroachments-under-municipal-laws
Trending Judiciary
SC Sets Aside NGT Order for Temple Demolition; Holds Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction Over Encroachments Under Municipal Laws [Read Order]

Supreme Court sets aside NGT order to demolish Ghaziabad temple, ruling tribunal lacks jurisdiction over encroachments under municipal laws.

18 March, 2026 10:41 AM
meghalaya-hc-quashes-ghadc-order-making-st-certificate-mandatory-for-election-nominations
Trending Judiciary
Meghalaya HC Quashes GHADC Order Making ST Certificate Mandatory for Election Nominations [Read Order]

Meghalaya HC quashes GHADC notification mandating ST certificate for poll nominations, cites lack of Governor approval and due process.

18 March, 2026 03:51 PM
ignorance-of-law-no-defence-in-child-marriage-cases-subsequent-marital-harmony-cannot-erase-criminal-liability-karnataka-hc
Trending Judiciary
Ignorance of Law No Defence in Child Marriage Cases; Subsequent Marital Harmony Cannot Erase Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Karnataka HC rules ignorance of law no defence in child marriage cases; says later marital harmony cannot erase criminal liability under law.

18 March, 2026 04:41 PM
section-319-crpc-stage-is-not-a-mini-trial-trial-courts-cannot-apply-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-standard-sc
Trending Judiciary
Section 319 CrPC Stage Is Not a Mini Trial; Trial Courts Cannot Apply ‘Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Standard: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules Section 319 CrPC stage is not a mini trial; courts cannot apply proof beyond reasonable doubt while summoning additional accused.

18 March, 2026 04:51 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email