Back
directs Bar Council to disclose names of 1,157 advocates without valid CoP
In a significant move to uphold professional standards, the has directed the to publish the names of 1,157 advocates who have been practicing without a valid after failing to clear the . A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V.M. Syam Kumar issued a series of strict orders to ensure that these advocates cannot continue to represent clients until they obtain the requisite certification. The court also instructed that no case filed by any of these advocates be registered by the court registry, and that existing matters already filed by them be flagged for the attention of the bench.
The Background of the PIL
The order was delivered on a filed by an individual who, during a matrimonial dispute in a family court, discovered that the advocate representing the opposite party had not passed the AIBE and lacked a valid CoP. The petitioner filed an RTI application with the , which confirmed that the advocate in question was indeed unqualified. Upon further inquiry, the Bar Council provided a list of 1,157 advocates enrolled between and who had never cleared the AIBE or obtained a CoP. The petitioner then approached the High Court, alleging that despite the disclosure, no effective action had been taken against these advocates.
The PIL sought enforcement of the relevant provisions of the , which requires every advocate enrolled after 2010 to pass the AIBE and obtain a Certificate of Practice before being allowed to appear in court. The Act, read with the ’s rules, makes it mandatory for advocates to hold a valid CoP; practicing without one is a .
Court’s Directions
The Division Bench passed a comprehensive order to address the issue. First, it directed the to publish the complete list of the 1,157 advocates on its official website as well as on the ’s website. The court also ordered that no matter in which any of these advocates have filed a be registered by the Registry of the concerned court.
“The department is directed to not register any matter in which these 1,157 advocates have filed their . In the event it is found that any of these 1,157 have already filed , there should be proper endorsement in the file by the Registry of the concerned court for the benefit of the Bench,” the court said.
Additionally, the Registrar (District Judiciary) has been directed to forward the list to every District Court in the state, ensuring that the restriction applies uniformly across all courts in Kerala. The court clarified that if any of the named advocates subsequently obtains a valid Certificate of Practice, their name can be deleted from the list upon producing an authenticated copy of the certificate.
“However, if it is found that any of these advocates have in the meantime obtained a certificate of practice, their name shall be deleted from the list provided they file an authenticated copy of their certificate,” the Bench added.
Implications for the Legal Community
This order has far-reaching consequences for both the advocates and the litigants affected. For the 1,157 advocates, the immediate impact is that they cannot file new cases or continue representing clients in existing matters unless they rectify their status. This may lead to significant disruptions in ongoing litigation, as many clients may need to change counsel. The court’s direction to flag existing files ensures that judges are alerted to the advocate’s lack of qualification, potentially leading to objections from opposing parties or even action.
For the legal profession, the order reinforces the importance of the AIBE and the Certificate of Practice as gatekeeping mechanisms. The AIBE was introduced in 2010 to ensure minimum competency among new entrants. However, the fact that over a thousand advocates could slip through the cracks indicates a systemic failure in enforcement. The must now account for why these advocates were allowed to practice despite not fulfilling statutory requirements.
The order also places an additional burden on the court registry and district courts, which must now verify vakalatnamas against the list. This could slow down case processing in the short term but may serve as a strong deterrent against future non-compliance.
Quotes from the Judgment
The court’s language underscores the seriousness of the issue. In addition to the above quotes, the Bench observed that the practice of law without a valid CoP undermines the integrity of the legal system. The PIL had argued that litigants were being represented by unqualified persons, often without their knowledge, which violates the fundamental right to fair representation under .
The High Court also noted that the Bar Council is a statutory body entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining standards of legal education and practice. By failing to act on the list for months after the RTI disclosure, the council had allowed the situation to persist.
Way Forward
The order is a temporary measure until a permanent solution is implemented. The is expected to take disciplinary action against the listed advocates, which may include suspension or removal from the rolls. The , provides for such penalties under Section 35 for .
For the advocates concerned, the only way to clear their names is to pass the AIBE and obtain a CoP. The court’s order allows them to do so and have their names removed from the list. However, until then, they face a complete ban on practicing.
This development is a wake-up call for bar councils across India. The Kerala case may prompt similar audits in other states, ensuring that the AIBE requirement is strictly enforced nationwide. The High Court’s proactive approach sets a precedent for judicial oversight of legal professional regulation.
Conclusion
The ’s order is a landmark enforcement of professional standards in the legal profession. By directing the to publicly name and shame 1,157 unqualified advocates, and by halting their practice until they obtain valid certificates, the court has sent a clear message that shortcuts will not be tolerated. For legal professionals, this is a reminder that compliance with statutory requirements is non‑negotiable, and for litigants, it is a reassurance that the courts will protect their right to competent representation.
