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 control over advocates.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 33595/2020 (for impleadment) in WP(C) 9862/2020

2. Ld. counsel submits that vide this application, an Applicant was seeking impleadment in the present petition. However, he has already been given provisional enrolment and he is appearing in the All India Bar Exam on 25th April, 2021. Accordingly, the impleadment application is not pressed.

3. The application is dismissed as withdrawn.

W.P.(C) 5732/2020 & CM APPLs. 20717/2020 & 24320/2020 (both for directions)

WP(C) 9862/2020

4. Wp(C) 5732/2020 has been filed by two Petitioners - Ms. Ananya Bajpai and Mr. Kartikeya Sharma praying for directions against the Respondent, i.e., the Bar Council of Delhi (hereinafter, 'BCD') to accept their enrolment applications, including the payment thereto, entirely in electronic form.

5. Mr. Abhijat, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that vide order dated 28th August, 2020, the BCD was directed to place on record the steps taken by them for online enrolment. He submits that no affidavit has been filed by the BCD in this regard.

6. Mr. Sangwan, ld. counsel appearing for the BCD submits that the BCD has, since July, 2020, enrolled a large number of about 5,000 Advocates, through online enrolment procedures. Even online payment of the enrolment fee has been made possible. The first All India Bar Exam post the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted on 24th January, 2021 physically and the next Bar Exam is scheduled for 25th April, 2021.

7. Ld. counsel further submits that in so far as providing online forms is concerned, the BCD is already in consultation with its IT Team and the recommendations of the IT team are likely to be placed before the Full House of the BCD shortly. In any event, he submits that both the Petitioners have already been enrolled provisionally and they have also given the bar examination.

8. Mr. Abhijat confirms that the Bar Exam has been given by both the Petitioners.

9. In WP(C) No. 9862/2020, the prayer of Mr. Abhishek Anand, the Petitioner in person, is that online enrolment should be permitted and exemption should be granted from filing of rent agreement/proof of residence.

10. Even in his case, he has been granted provisional enrolment. However, he continues to challenge the condition for production of a proof of residence as, according to him, the same is violative of Section 25 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as also Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

11. Mr. Ajaywinder Sangwan, ld. counsel, on the other hand, submits that in so far as the BCD is concerned, enrolment is permitted to all lawyers who are residents of Delhi or the NCR region. Since the BCD can regulate the enrolment of Advocates who are practising within its jurisdiction, the requirement of rent agreement/proof of residence has been made applicable to all those seeking enrolment.

12. This Court has considered the averments made by the parties. In so far as the online enrolment process is concerned, it appears that sufficient steps have been taken by the BCD during the pandemic to enable provisional enrolment of Advocates through online mechanisms. The BCD ought to continue its endeavour to make the entire system as transparent and convenient as possible for Advocates who are seeking enrolment. Accordingly, the BCD may take a decision expeditiously in respect of making available online forms and accepting documents online, as also facilitating the online payment of enrolment fee. In so far as online enrolment and exemption from physical appearance is concerned, the feasibility of the same may also be considered by the BCD which would take a decision expeditiously, in accordance with law.

13. In so far as exemption from filing the rent agreement/proof of residence is concerned, the submissions of the parties have been heard.

14. The submission of the Petitioner that such a document cannot be insisted upon is based on the interpretation of the phrase 'proposes