Delhi HC: Non-Proof of Hearing Notice Dispatch Doesn’t by Itself Show no Personal Hearing Was Given  ||  Delhi High Court: No Construction or Residence Allowed on Yamuna Floodplains, Even For Graveyards  ||  J&K High Court: Right to Speedy Trial Includes Appeals; Closes 46-Year-Old Criminal Case Due to Delay  ||  J&K High Court: Courts Must Not Halt Corruption Probes, Refuses to Quash FIR  ||  J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC    

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