Advocate Haamid Bhat Raises Serious Concerns Over Dual Positions in Kashmir Advocates Association

Advocate Haamid Bhat, a prominent and outspoken voice of the legal fraternity, has raised serious, principled, and uncompromising objections to the practice of holding dual positions by advocates, particularly the holding of a government law office simultaneously with the post of President of a Bar Association in the Kashmir Division.

Advocate Haamid Bhat categorically stated that an advocate holding a government position cannot and should not function as the President of a Bar Association, as it strikes at the very root of professional independence, neutrality, and ethical conduct. He emphasized that a Bar President is expected to represent the collective interests of advocates, including those who regularly litigate against the State, whereas a Government Advocate or Law Officer posted in the Advocate General’s Office is duty-bound to defend the State, leading to an inherent, direct, and irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Raising a pointed question, Advocate Bhat asked: “How can a President of a Bar Association simultaneously hold a Government Law Officer position in the Advocate General’s Office and still claim to independently safeguard the interests of the legal fraternity?”

He described such an arrangement as ethically impermissible, professionally untenable, and institutionally destructive.

Expressing grave concern over the functioning of the Kashmir Advocates Association, Advocate Bhat said that such practices severely undermine the credibility and autonomy of the Bar and erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.

“The Bar Association is not a ceremonial body; it is a representative institution meant to safeguard the rights, dignity, and independence of lawyers. Allowing dual roles converts the Bar into an extension of executive influence,” he asserted.

Advocate Bhat further pointed out that the professional ethics framed by the Bar Council of India, along with settled legal principles, clearly prohibit advocates from occupying positions that create divided loyalties or compromise independence. He clarified that the issue is not personal but institutional and ethical, and must be addressed in the larger interest of the legal fraternity.

He categorically urged that the Bar Council of India should take appropriate and immediate action against the Kashmir Advocates Association for permitting such a blatant conflict of interest, stating that failure to act would amount to endorsing unethical practices within the legal profession.

Advocate Haamid Bhat warned that silence on such violations would normalize conflicts of interest, weaken the collective voice of advocates in Kashmir, and seriously damage the independence of the Bar.

He concluded by reiterating that the strength of the Bar lies in its independence, and any deviation from ethical norms must be firmly, transparently, and decisively corrected.