Delhi HC: Girl Being Friendly on Valentine’s Day Does Not Justify Forced Sexual Activity under POCSO  ||  Delhi HC: Street Vendors Must Maintain Cleanliness and Not Encroach on Public Spaces  ||  Delhi HC: Victim’s Negligence Cannot Bar Compensation in Railway Accident Cases  ||  Jharkhand HC: Pre-1947 Transfers Exempt from Section 46; 45-Year Delay Blocks Restoration  ||  Delhi HC: Mediation Settlement Does Not Remove Criminal Liability But Can be Considered For Bail  ||  Delhi High Court: Newslaundry Acted Maliciously and Showed Intolerance Toward TV Today  ||  SC: New Tree Growth on Land Approved For Development Does Not Qualify it as 'Deemed Forest'  ||  SC: Confiscation Proceedings Can Continue Against Wife of Deceased Public Servant with Illicit Asset  ||  Supreme Court: Strict Procedure Must be Followed under UP Gangsters Act Due to Serious Consequences  ||  Supreme Court: HCs Can Go Beyond FIR to Quash Frivolous or Vexatious Criminal Cases    

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