IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 233 of 2023 & CM Appl. 849 of 2023
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Employment - All India Bar Examination - Bar Council of Delhi - Bar Council of India - Advocates Act, 1961, Rule 5, Chapter- III
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a LLB graduate working as a Senior Assistant, sought provisional enrolment to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE-XVII) but was denied due to being in government service. The petitioner relied on a Gujarat High Court decision allowing persons in employment to take the bar exam and decide on employment after clearing the exam. The Supreme Court clarified the procedure for enrolling persons in employment, directing an undertaking to decide on resignation or joining the profession within six months of passing the exam.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a person in employment cannot be stopped from taking the AIBE-XVII, as recognized by previous court decisions and the Supreme Court's directions. It emphasized the evolving legal profession and the need for flexibility for LLB graduates in employment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of provisional enrolment to the petitioner due to government employment and the flexibility for LLB graduates in employment to take the bar exam.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that LLB graduates in employment should be given the flexibility to appear in the AIBE-XVII and decide on employment after passing the exam, in line with previous court decisions and the Supreme Court's directions.
Final Decision: The court directed the Bar Council of Delhi to grant provisional enrolment to the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to appear for AIBE-XVII, emphasizing the need for flexibility for LLB graduates in employment. The Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Delhi were directed to file their respective affidavits in the matter within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sandeep, S/o Mr. Shishpal Singh, who is a LLB graduate from the batch of 2014- 2017, University of Delhi. The Petitioner has been working as a Senior Assistant with the Delhi Jal Board from 3rd October, 2016.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he wishes to appear in the All India Bar Examination (hereinafter, "AIBE-XVII"), which is scheduled to be held on 5th February, 2023. The last date of filing of the application form for AIBE-XVII is 16th January, 2023. The Petitioner is stated to have filed the application and provided all the required documents to the Respondent No.3 - Bar Council of Delhi (hereinafter, "BCD"). However, the provisional enrolment number has not yet been made available to the Petitioner, because of which he is unable to file the application for appearing in the AIBE-XVII. It is submitted that the following message was received from the office of the BCD on 14th December, 2022:
"Mr. Sandeep S/o Mr. Shishpal Singh
It has been informed that you had submitted your enrolment form on 12.10.2022 in Bar Council of Delhi. Your enrolment form was sent for legal opinion because you are presently in Government Service. As per legal opinion presently your enrolment has been denied with Bar Council of Delhi as an Advocate. Please collect the copy of Legal Opinion letter from the office of Bar Council of Delhi."
4. The Petitioner relies upon the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in "Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar v. Union of India in R/Special Civil Application No. 15123 of 2019", wherein the Court had permitted persons who are in employment to take the bar exam and had given six months to them after the clearing of the bar exam, as to whether they wish to continue with the employment or start practising. The relevant observations in the said judgment are as under:
"32. It is too much to say that a person desirous to get himself enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council should be asked at its inception to give up any other vocation, business or job and only, thereafter, he can be enrolled on the roll of the State Bar Council. We are dealing with a matter, in which, as single mother has come before us saying that no sooner she is enrolled as an Advocate after clearing the Bar Council Entrance Exam, then she would file a declaration on oath that she has given up the job which she has as on date. The lady is in a helpless situation. Today, if she gives up her job being a single mother, and god forbid if she is unable to clear the All India Bar examination, then she would be left without any means of livelihood. She has made herself very clear that she may be issued a provisional Sanad and such provisional Sanad shall remain in deposit with the Bar Council of Gujarat and she would obtain the final Sanad after clearing the Bar Council of India Exam. She has already filed an undertaking to this effect. We have quoted the entire undertaking in the earlier part of our judgment. If that be so, may it not be said that the object of Rules 1 and 2 respectively of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules as well as Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules is protected and sub-served.
33. In such circumstances, referred to above, we read down Rules 1 and 2 respectively of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules so as to read that a person may be either in full or part time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession, who otherwise is qualified to be admitted as an Advocate shall be admitted as an Advocate, however, the enrollment certificate of such a person shall be withheld with the Bar Council and shall lie in deposit with the Council until the concerned person makes a declaration that the circumstances mentioned in Rule 2 have ceased to exist and that he or she has started his/her practice.
34. We, accordingly, direct the Bar Cou
AI
The main legal principle established is that LLB graduates in employment should be given the flexibility to appear in the All India Bar Examination and decide on employment after passing the exam, in....
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....
(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 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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of 'continuously practicing advocate for not less than 7 years' for selection to the Delhi Higher Judicial....
Point of Law : voluntarily suspended from legal practice then such a person cannot be said to have the legal right to practise as an Advocate.
Court directed BCI to extend enrolment time limit due to delay caused solely by State Bar Council post AIBE results.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the number of opportunities for completing the LL.B. degree course cannot exceed the permissible opportunities as per the applicable rules and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.