Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against the order of the Orissa High Court dated 21.09.2012, which had directed BCI to enrol respondent No. 1, Rabi Sahu, as an Advocate. Respondent No. 1 had obtained his law degree from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, in 2009, a college that was not recognized or approved by BCI. BCI had, by letters dated 05.01.2002 and 28.02.2011, directed the college not to admit students and informed the Orissa State Bar Council that such students would not be eligible for enrolment. Consequently, the Orissa State Bar Council rejected respondent No. 1's application for enrolment on 04.05.2011. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court, which was allowed by a Division Bench relying on the Supreme Court's decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999) 3 SCC 176. The High Court held that once a candidate fulfills the conditions under Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and does not suffer any disqualification under Section 24A, he is entitled to enrolment, and BCI cannot add any further conditions. The Supreme Court noted that the decision in V. Sudeer had been overruled by a Constitution Bench in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. (2023), which held that BCI has the power under Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Act to prescribe norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate, including requiring the law degree to be from a recognized college. Therefore, the High Court's order was erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Enrolment as Advocate - Power of BCI to prescribe pre-enrolment conditions - The Bar Council of India has the power under Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to frame rules requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/approved by BCI. The earlier decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999) 3 SCC 176, which held that BCI could not impose additional conditions beyond Section 24(1), was overruled by a Constitution Bench in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. (2023). The High Court's reliance on V. Sudeer was erroneous. (Paras 5-7) B) Advocates Act, 1961 - Enrolment as Advocate - Law degree from unrecognized college - A candidate who secured his law degree from a college not recognized/approved by BCI is not entitled to enrolment as an Advocate. The Orissa High Court's direction to enrol such a candidate was set aside. (Paras 4, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bar Council of India has the power to frame rules requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/approved by BCI, and whether the Orissa High Court was justified in directing enrolment despite the candidate having obtained a law degree from an unrecognized college.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C). No. 32506 of 2011, and directed that there shall be no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bar Council of India has power to frame rules imposing pre-enrolment conditions
- Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of Advocates Act
- 1961
- V. Sudeer overruled by Constitution Bench in Bonnie Foi Law College case
- Enrolment as Advocate requires law degree from BCI-recognized college
