NCLAT: Resolution Professional Can’t Admit Claims Based On Uninvoked Guarantee  ||  NCLAT: Upon Approval of Resolution Plan, Claims not Included in RP Stand Extinguished  ||  All. HC: Police Must Ensure that Movement of Lawyers to Court is Unhindered  ||  Mad. HC: Can’t Bar Court from Entertaining more than One Application u/s 29A of A&C Act  ||  Kar. HC: Can Quash Cr. Proceedings on Basis of Witness Statements only in Rare Cases  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Transfer Probe to CBI Merely because Accused is Sitting CM  ||  Bom. HC Issues Contempt Notice against Woman Circulating Objectionable Comments against SC & HC  ||  Del. HC Upholds Validity of Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013  ||  Mad. HC: Provision Preventing Arrest of Women is Directory not Mandatory  ||  Del. HC: Bald Allegations against IO Insufficient for Transferring Probe to Another Agency    

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