The Supreme Court has recognized the authority of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to make rules for the enrolment of advocates in addition to the conditions provided u/s 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Vacation Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vikram Nath upheld the validity of the rule mandating that for enrolment, candidates must have completed their law course from a college/university recognized by BCI.

Brief Facts of the Case: 

The Respondent, Rabi Sahu, is a law graduate from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, graduating in 2009. However, the college was not recognised or authorised by the BCI and was directed not to admit students to law courses in 2002 itself stating that such students would not be eligible for enrolment as Advocates. The Orissa State Bar Council accordingly rejected the application of the Respondent for enrolment as an Advocate. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed a writ-petition before the Orissa High Court. 

The writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and it ordered that the petitioner be enrolled in the State Bar. The High Court relied on the decision of  V.Sudeer Vs. Bar Council of India & ANR, 1999 Latest Caselaw 70 SC where it was held that no condition other than those mentioned in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 can be imposed upon a person who wishes to practice law in India. 

The Division Bench of Orissa HC accordingly held that once a candidate fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and did not suffer any disqualification under Section 24A thereof, he would be entitled to enrolment as an Advocate. Emphasizing that BCI could not frame rules and add any condition for enrolment in addition to what was prescribed under Section 24 of the Act of 1961.

Observations of the Court: 

The Court referred to the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India Vs. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors.,2023 Latest Caselaw 98 SC

The Constitution Bench took up for consideration the decision in V Sudeer (supra) and held it to be not good law. 

The Bench held that BCI’s role before the enrolment of a candidate cannot be ousted and the ratio decidendi in V. Sudeer was erroneous in holding that it was not one of the statutory functions of BCI to frame rules imposing pre-enrolment conditions.

It was categorically held that Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Act of 1961 vested BCI with the power to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate. As a consequence, the interdict placed by the decision in V. Sudeer (supra) on the power of BCI was unsustainable. 

The Constitution Bench, accordingly, held that V. Sudeer (supra) did not lay down the correct position of law.

Relying on the ratio of BCI v Bonnie Foi Law College (supra), the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Orissa High Court and observed that the rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid.

The Court, without any hesitation, held that the Division Bench was not justified in directing the enrolment of the respondent (Rabi Sahu) as an Advocate, although he secured his law degree from a college which was not recognized or approved by BCI.

The appeal filed by BCI against the 2012 order of the Orissa High Court was allowed. The impugned order of Orissa High Court, dated 21.09.2012 was set aside.

Case Title: Bar Council of India v Rabi Sahu & Anr., 2023 Latest Caselaw 525 SC
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8571 Of 2013
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 525 SC
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates for Appellants: Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR; Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Adv.; Ms. Sjhreya Srivstava, Adv.; Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv.

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :