HC reiterates, 'BCI has power to form General Rules. Lawyer's right to practice can be made subject to BCI-imposed conditions even post-enrollment' [Read Order]

In one of its order last week, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reterieted reiterated that it lies with the Bar Council of India powers to frame General Rules laying down conditions subject to which an Advocate shall have right to practise even post enrollment.

The Court made it clear that the right of a Lawyer to practice can be made subject to these conditions.

Referring to the relevant Section, Section-49 of the Advocates' Act, 1961, the Court enunciated that it confers on the Bar Council of India general power to make rules for discharging its functions.

The Court highlighted that Clause (ah) of this Section "empowers the BCI to lay down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a Court."

The Court thus further observed:

"In other words, the Bar Council of India is conferred with the power to frame Rules laying down conditions post enrollment subject to which an advocate shall have right to practise. In other words, an advocate getting enrolled under Section 24 can be subjected to further conditions before he is permitted to practise as an advocate in court."

The petitioner in the particular case has challenged Rule 9 of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) Rules, 2010, framed by the BCI as per which it was made compulsory for all Advocates who have graduated from 2009-10 onwards to pass the AIBE in order to practice the law.

Along with challenging the validity of the Rule, the petitioner in addition protested the BCI's non-declaration of the 2019 AIBE results in Jabalpur and Bhopal exam centres.

It was the agruement of the petitioner that it is beyond the powers of the BCI to introduce such a Rule to deprive enrolled advocates from practising.

The High Court while discarding the arguement made referrence to V Sudeer vs Bar Council of India wherein the Supreme Court had said,

"It is, therefore, obvious that once a person has been enrolled as an advocate under the Act, his right to practise can be made subject to certain conditions if the Bar Council of India seeks to impose such conditions on an enrolled advocate. In other words, rule-making power under Section 49(1)(ah) deals with a situation which is post-enrolment of an advocate."

Citing the above judgement, the Court dismissed the challange and further took note that the BCI had cancelled the exam at the Jabalpur and Bhopal centres on account of mass copying. Therefore the petitioner's prayers cannot be accepted.

The Court though clarified to the petitioner that he may approach the BCI and the State Bar Council. The respective authorities then may make a decision after the presentation is made to them.

The order has been passed by Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey on 14-10-2020.

Read Order Here:

Picture Source :