Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 122
Karnataka High Court
Manjula B.R. - Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Bar Council - Respondent
Decided On : 02-13-02
W.P. : 20161 of 1999
A.C.VINAYARAJ, B.L.SANJEEV, K.M.NATARAJ, M.V.VEDACHALA, R.RAVI KUMAR, Subhash B.Adi, SURESH S.JOSHI, T.P.RAJENDRA SUNGAY
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Bar Council of India cannot impose additional conditions for enrollment as advocates beyond what is prescribed in Section 24 of the Advocates Act.
Headnote:
Advocates Act - Recognition of Law College - Section 7(1)(m), Section 49(1)(j) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 24 and Section 24a of the Advocates Act, 1961, which outline the qualifications for admission as an advocate on a State roll. The court emphasized that a person can be admitted as an advocate if they have completed a three-year course of study in law from a university recognized by the Bar Council of India. The judgment also highlighted the Supreme Court's ruling in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, which clarified that the Bar Council of India cannot add any conditions for enrollment beyond what is prescribed in Section 24 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners completed a three-year law course at Rajiv Gandhi College of Law, affiliated to Bangalore University, and sought enrollment as advocates. The Karnataka State Bar Council refused their enrollment, citing lack of recognition by the Bar Council of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners fulfilled the requirements for enrollment as advocates under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, as they had completed a three-year course of study in law from a university recognized by the Bar Council of India. The court declared the refusal of enrollment by the Karnataka State Bar Council as illegal and directed the admission of the petitioners as advocates.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, having completed their law course at an affiliated college, could be denied enrollment as advocates based on lack of recognition by the Bar Council of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bar Council of India cannot impose additional conditions for enrollment beyond what is prescribed in Section 24 of the Advocates Act. It emphasized that the recognition of the university, not the college, by the Bar Council of India is the relevant factor for enrollment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, declared the refusal of enrollment as illegal, directed the admission of the petitioners as advocates, and confirmed the enrollment of petitioners in pursuance of interim orders.
( 1 ) THESE petitions involving common questions are heard together by consent and disposed of by this order.
( 2 ) THE peitioners in these petitions have successfully completed three years Law course in the Rajiv Gandhi College of law, Malleswaram, Bangalore, which is affiliated to Bangalore University, and obtained degrees in law in the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
( 3 ) WHEN the petitioners wanted to enroll themselves as advocates, the Karnataka State Bar Council informed them that they could not be enrolled as the college where they underwent the course of study (Rajiv Gandhi College of Law) has not been recognized by the Bar Council of India (BCI for short ).
( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, petitioners have filed these petitions for the following reliefs :a) for quashing of the endorsement issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council, rejecting the applications for enrolment on the ground that Rajiv Gandhi College of Law is not recognised by BCI (wherever such endorsements are issued) :b) a declaration that Sections 7 (1) (m) and 49 (1) (j) of the Advocates Act, 1961, are arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional;c) a declaration that Rules 12 and 13 of Section B of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules or any directive or provisions of the Rules, providing for approval or disapproval of the affiliation already granted by the University and for inspection of law colleges, are ultra vires and unconstitutional; andd) for a direction to the BCI and the State Bar Council to enrol them as Advocates. In pursuance of interim orders petitioners have been enrolled as Advocates, subject to the final decision in the writ petitions.
( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the BCI and State Bar Council are directed to enrol them as Advocates or if the petitioners" enrolment in pursuance of the interim orders is not disturbed, they will not press their prayers in regard to constitutional validity of Sections 7 (1) (m) and 49 (1) (j) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) and Rules 12 and 13 of Section B of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules (for short, the Rules ). The petitioners contend that the degrees of law obtained by them from Bangalore University by undergoing a course of study in law in a college affiliated to the said University was sufficient to get themselves enrolled; and they were not concerned with approval by BCI, of the affiliation of their College to the Bangalore University.
( 6 ) RAJIV Gandhi College of Law (College for short) which has been impleaded in some cases, has filed a memo, stating that it was established in the year 1994 and is affiliated to Bangalore University; that eversince then, its students have been appearing for the examinations conducted by the Bangalore University; that the State Bar Council has enrolled several of its students who have secured law degrees by undergoing the course of Law study in its college without objection; that it made an application to the Bar Council of India for approval of affiliation in the year 1997: that the Bar Council of India on inspection, pointed out certain shortcomings and required that they should be complied with; that it complied with the said requirements and requested BCI to again inspect the college; and that on 12-8-2001 the Bar Council of India inspected the college and has issued an order dated 16-10-2001, approving its affiliation for the year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The college has stated that it has requested BCI by letter dated 2-10-2001 for approving the course conducted during the earlier years between 1994 to 2001; and that BCI, by letter dated 19-11-2001 has informed the college that the question of such approval will be considered shortly.
( 7 ) BANGALORE University, which is impleaded as one of the respondents in most of these cases, has supported the claim of petitioners. The University admits that the petitioners have been permitted to appear for the law de
