SC: Ex-Contract Workers Must Be Preferred When Employers Replace Contract Labour With Regular Staff  ||  SC: Waqf Tribunals Cannot Hear Claims over Properties Not Listed or Registered under Waqf Act  ||  Supreme Court: Stray Dog Attacks on Beaches Adversely Impact Tourism  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Court Employees Cannot Enroll as Regular LLB Students in Breach of Service Rules  ||  Kerala HC: Telling Someone to "Go Away And Die" in Anger Does Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide  ||  Kerala HC: High Courts Work On Holidays; Denying Compensatory Leave To Officers Violates Art. 229  ||  Del HC: Probationers are ‘Workmen’ under ID Act; S.17B Wages not Recoverable if Termination Upheld  ||  Supreme Court: Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Form the Basis of Conviction  ||  SC: Higher Land Acquisition Compensation to Some Owners Cannot Invalidate Awards to Others  ||  SC: Prior Written Demand is Not Mandatory For an Industrial Dispute to Exist or be Referred    

Bar Council Of India vs. Rabi Sahu - (Supreme Court) (09 Jun 2023)

Candidate for enrolment as an Advocate needs to have completed law course from a college approved by BCI

MANU/SC/0649/2023

Civil

Bar Council of India (BCI) is in appeal against the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court. By the said order, BCI was directed to forthwith enrol the writ Petitioner, viz., Respondent No. 1 herein, as an Advocate.

Respondent No. 1 secured his law degree from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, in the year 2009. This college is not recognized/approved by BCI. In fact, by letter dated 5th January, 2002, BCI had directed not to admit students in law course stating that students so admitted would not be eligible for enrolment as Advocates. The Orissa State Bar Council rejected the application of respondent No. 1 for enrolment as an Advocate, vide letter dated 04.05.2011. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 1 filed writ petition before the Orissa High Court.

The rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid, as was held in the impugned order.

The Division Bench was not justified in directing the enrolment of Respondent No. 1 as an Advocate, despite the fact that he secured his law degree from a college which was not recognized or approved by BCI. Impugned order of High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : ENROLMENT   DIRECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved