Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved