Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Bar Council of India – Petitioner
VERSUS
Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 969 of 2023 Arising out of SLP (C) No.22337 of 2008 With W.P.(C) No.25/2021, T.C.(C) No.16/2011, T.C.(C) No.12/2011, T.C.(C) No.13/2011, T.C.(C) No.36/2011, T.C.(C) No.14/2011, T.C.(C) No.15/2011, T.C.(C) No.75/2012, T.C.(C) No.88/2012, W.P.(C) No.987/2013, T.P.(C) No.692/2015, T.C.(C) No.8/2012, T.C.(C) No.17/2011, T.C.(C) No.18/2011
Decided On : 10-02-2023
(A) Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 23, 24 and 49(1)(ag) – Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 – Bar Examination and pre-enrolment training – Quality of lawyers is an important aspect and part of administration of justice and access to justice – Half baked Lawyers serve no purpose – It is this quality control which has been endeavour of all efforts made over a period of time – Bar Council of India, being apex professional body of Advocates, is concerned with standards of legal profession and equipment of those who seek entry into that profession – Neither these provisions, nor role of Universities to impart legal education, in any way, prohibit Bar Council of India from conducting pre-enrolment examination – When under Section 24(1), Bar Council of India has statutory power of prescribing Rules subject to which a person may be treated as qualified to be admitted as an Advocate in State roll, Bar Council of India is not devoid of its jurisdiction in undertaking a pre-enrolment training course or examination prescribed by Bar Council of India – These are adequate powers with Bar Council of India under the Act to provide such norms and Rules for entitlement to be enrolled as Advocate – Interdict placed by Judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176 on powers of Bar Council of India cannot be sustained – It has to be left to Bar Council of India as to at what stage All India Bar Examination has to be held – pre or post – In view of periodic changes in legal position and consequent nature of All India Bar Examinations being held, this judgment would be prospectively applicable so that it does not disturb scenarios which have prevailed during interregnum period – Setting aside of judgment in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176 is in no manner an imprimatur to mandating requirement of pre-enrolment training. (Paras 19, 20, 31, 33, 35, 36 and 47)
(B) Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 23, 24 and 49(1)(ag) – Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 – Bar Examination and pre-enrolment training – Students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to pursue final semester of final year course of law, on production of proof of same, could be allowed to take All India Bar Examination – Result of All India Bar Examination would be subject to person passing all components required under course of study of University/College – This would be subject to All India Bar Examination results being valid for a specified period of time. (Para 38)
(C) Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 16, 21 and 49(1)(ae) – Seniority at Bar – Determination of seniority in case of a post-enrolment examination based on date of birth of an Advocate is stated to have statutory recognition under Section 21 of Act currently – Bar Council of India has powers to make rules determining seniority among Advocates under Section 49(1)(ae) of Act. (Para 40)
(D) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 49(1)(ah) – Late enrolment at Bar – There may be persons who despite being enrolled at Bar, decide to take another job and come back into profession after a considerable period of time, at times even post retirement – Appropriate rules can be framed laying down that an enrolled Advocate who takes up an employment in a non-legal context for a substantial length of time (say for five years) would be deemed to be a new enrolee and in order to regain qualification, that person would be required to take All India Bar Examination once more – Requirements of an active legal practice and that of an unconnected job are different – Even if a person has a law degree or enrolment, it does not mean that his ability to assist court would continue with him if there are long hiatus period of time in some unconnected job – He would have to hone and test his skills afresh – If there is a substantial break, norms should be specified by Bar Council of India that to regain that qualification the person would be subject to re-examination and would be required to take All India Bar Examination once more. (Para 42)
(E) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 24(1)(f) – Enrolment fee – Different State Bar Councils are charging different fees for enrolment – This is something which needs attention of Bar Council of India, which is not devoid of powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and fee does not become oppressive at threshold of young students joining Bar. (Para 44)
Facts of the case:
Original dispute between Bar Council of India and respondent college herein, arose on account of application of said college for affiliation to carry on a legal study course. This Court appointed an inspection team on 29.06.2009, which visited respondent college and gave a comprehensive report pointing out shortcomings in the infrastructure and functioning of the college. On 24.08.2009, Court laid down certain conditions to be followed by respondent college which the college claimed to have fulfilled later. During course of this matter, a larger question of diminishing standards of legal education provided at various law colleges in India came to be noticed vide the order dated 29.06.2009, which resulted in a Committee being appointed.
Findings of Court:
We hope that our view would assist in bringing forth enrolment of young bright minds at the Bar, who would be able to assist Court in a more efficient manner so that the administration of justice is benefited.
Result : Civil Appeal and Petitions disposed of with directions and observations.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Leave granted.
The Advocates Act:
1. The Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) was the consequence of a deeply felt need for change in the Judicial Administration in accordance with the needs of the time in the post-independence era. The Law Commission was assigned the job of preparing a report on the reform of Judicial Administration. In the meanwhile, the All India Bar Committee also made recommendations in 1953. This resulted in the said Act.
2. Chapter II of the said Act deals with the State Bar Councils, Bar Council of India and their functions.
3. Chapter IV of the said Act confers the right to practice on Advocates, who are the only recognised class of persons to do so and have their names entered in the rolls of the State Bar Councils.
4. Section 7 of the said Act provides for functions of the Bar Council of India, which inter alia includes the disciplinary power, protection powers to safeguard the interest of the advocates as also the general supervision and control over State Bar Councils. Further, Section 49 of the said Act refers to the general powers of the Bar Council of India to make rules.
Procedural History:
5. The original dispute between the Bar Council of India and Bonnie Foi Law College, the respondent college herein, arose on account of the application of the said college for affiliation to carry on a legal study course. This Court appointed an inspection team on 29.06.2009, which visited the respondent college and gave a comprehensive report pointing out shortcomings in the infrastructure and functioning of the college. On 24.08.2009, the Court laid down certain conditions to be followed by the respondent college which the college claimed to have fulfilled later.
6. During the course of this matter, a larger question of diminishing standards of legal education provided at various law colleges in India came to be noticed vide the order dated 29.06.2009, which resulted in a Committee being appointed comprising Mr. Gopal Subramanium, then Solicitor General of India as its Chairman; Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, then President of the Supreme Court Bar Association; and Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, then Chairman of the Bar Council of India. The said Committee was requested to examine issues relating to affiliation and recognition of law colleges, to identify areas requiring redressal and to address factors impeding the implementation of existing norms. A report was submitted to this Court on 06.10.2009 (“hereinafter referred to as the Report”).
7. The Report recognised two significant aspects as imperative for improving standards of legal profession, i.e., firstly, introduction of a bar examination and, secondly, compulsory requirement of apprenticeship under a senior lawyer prior to admission to the Bar. It made the following observations:
a. Bar Examination in India: A bar-examination is a precondition for admission to the Bar in most Commonwealth countries.
b. Pre-enrolment training: The requirement of training with a senior member of the Bar was present even before the enactment of the said Act, wherein a prospective lawyer was required to ‘train’ in the chambers for a period of one year, and then appear in an examination comprising the subjects of civil and criminal procedure. Thereafter, Section 24(1)(d) of the said Act continued the requirement of apprenticeship for graduate law students. However, this provision was omitted by the amending Act 60 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “1973 Amendment”), thereby discontinuing the practice.
The Report also recorded that the 1973 Amendment omitted Section 28(2)(b) of the said Act, which enabled State Bar Councils to frame rules regarding training and bar examination. In 1994, a High-Powered Committee on Legal Education recommended the reintroduction of the requirement for apprenticeship and bar examination and thus, Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “1995 Rules”) were framed by the Bar Cou
(1) Bar Examination and pre-enrolment training – Bar Examination and pre-enrolment training – Quality of lawyers is an important aspect and part of administration of justice and access to justice – H....
The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring ....
The right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.
The court emphasized the need for transparency and convenience in the enrolment process, while upholding the requirement of proof of residence as necessary for maintaining discipline and regulatory c....
Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Const....
The Bar Council lacks the authority to impose interim suspension on an Advocate pending disciplinary proceedings, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates adherence to due process and principle....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for advocates to clear the AIBE before being entitled to practice, and the need to balance the rights of advocates with the doctrin....
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
