SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
R.Nagarajan - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.5817 of 2024
Decided On : 25-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.M.Muthappan
For the Respondent: Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with educational qualifications as per the Bar Council of India and UGC regulations is mandatory for enrollment in the Bar, and candidates have the right to appeal decisions made by the State Bar Council.

Headnote:

MANDAMUS - ENROLLMENT IN BAR COUNCIL - The court addressed the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to compel the Bar Council to allot an enrollment number based on a one-year B.A. degree. The court highlighted that the degree did not meet the UGC's regular education criteria and emphasized the Bar Council's authority to verify educational qualifications under the Advocates Act, 1961. The court concluded that the petitioner could appeal to the Bar Council of India for redressal, thus affirming the procedural integrity of the enrollment process.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to allot an enrollment number based on a one-year B.A. degree obtained through distance education, which the Bar Council rejected due to non-compliance with the required three-year undergraduate qualification.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the one-year B.A. degree did not fulfill the educational criteria set by the UGC and the Bar Council of India, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's application for enrollment.

Issues: Whether the one-year B.A. degree obtained by the petitioner qualifies for enrollment in the Bar Council, and whether the petitioner has the right to appeal the decision of the Bar Council.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bar Council has the authority to verify educational qualifications and that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for enrollment as per the Advocates Act, 1961. The court affirmed the right of the petitioner to appeal to the Bar Council of India for further consideration.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to appeal to the Bar Council of India for redressal of grievances regarding enrollment.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to allot the enrollment number to the petitioner (PR No.1222985) based on the enrollment conducted on 01.09.2023 through virtual mode, within the time as may be fixed by this Court.

The writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the 2nd respondent to allot the enrollment number to the petitioner (PR No.1222985) based on the enrollment conducted on 01.09.2023 through virtual mode.

2. The petitioner admittedly under went one year B.A. Degree course, which cannot be construed as regular pattern of education as contemplated under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations.

3. Mr.M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one year B.A degree obtained by the petitioner is to be considered for the purpose of enrolment by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry filed a report stating as follows;

    “9. It is humbly submitted that under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, the State Bar Council do not have power to frame Rules relating to the legal education. However, the State Bar Councils are entitled to verify whether the candidate have fulfilled the criteria fixed by the Bar Council of India for being enrolled in the State Bar Councils and for that purpose the educational certificates of the candidates are being verified so as to analyze whether the candidate had regularly undergone the course and qualified therein in accordance with the rules of the Bar Council of India. Whenever the Bar Council notices such a case of candidates who had not obtained the qualification by following the Bar Council of India Rules, the said applications are being rejected and referred to the Bar Council of India under section 26(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The aggrieved candidate has the right to approach the Bar council of India whose decision would be final with regard to the enrolment.

10. It is humbly submitted that in case of the Petitioner since he has not complied the required qualification of under graduation of 3 years, and he had completed only 1 year under graduation course through Distance Education, he was not allowed to get enrolled and he has not been assigned with enrolment number.

4. In view of the factual dispute, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Bar Council of India under Advocates' Act, 1961 for the purpose of redressal of his grievances. In the event of filing an appeal, the same shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law.

5. With this liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top