TITLE- The Supreme Court upheld the rule of BCI requiring a law degree from a recognized institution to be admitted as an advocate.

CASE NAME- Bar Council Of India Vs Rabi Sahu & Anr

CITATION- Civil Appeal No. 8571 Of 2013

COURT- the Supreme Court of India

BENCH/JUDGES- Vikram Nath, Sanjay Kumar

DECIDED ON- 09 June 2023

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

1. In the present case the Bar Council of India who is the appellant went to the supreme court against the order of Orissa HC.

2. In the decision of Orissa High Court it was mentioned that bar council can not impose a condition that a person who has acquired law degree from any recognised law college only those called as an advocate and no person shall be restrained from the enrollment as an advocate.

3. In 2009 the respondent named Rabi Sahu got his degree of law from Vivekananda Law College. But the college was not recognised as per the rules of BCI. With his degree of law he applied for enrollment in the BCI.

4. But, The Bar Council of India pointed out that this college is not recognised, hence the respondent is not eligible for the enrollment.

5. The respondent sought the relief from the Orissa High Court.

6. The High Court of Orissa allowed this petition after relying upon the case of  V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India and another [(1999) 3 SCC 176].

7.     Also stated in section 24(1) of the Advocates Act which states the qualifications required for an advocate.

ISSUES

1. Whether the order of the HC of Orissa should be set aside?

2. Whether the present petition is maintainable before the SC?

3. Whether the appeal made by BCI is proper?

RATIO

●  The bench held that the rules made by the BCI cannot be ignored at all. The role of BCI cannot be ousted prior to enrollment.

●  Further stated that as per given in the case of V. Sudeer, that rules framed by BCI about imposing pre-enrollment conditions is not a function of BCI was erroneous.

●  Also the section mentioned in the order which is 24(3)(d) must be read along with section 49 of the Act of 1961 which states the powers vested to the Bar Council of India for making the rules.

●  Such rules prescribed the terms and conditions for entitlement of enrollment as an advocate. Hence the SC said that the case of V. Sudeer is not appropriate to the present case.

●  Hence the SC said that the HC cannot take into consideration such a case which is not in a position of law.

HELD

The supreme court held that the order passed by the HC of Orissa is not maintainable and hence set aside. Further stated that the BCI has full discretion to ensure the eligibility of not only the candidate who is enrolling but also the recognition of the college or university from which he acquired such a law degree. If BCI is approving or rejecting any candidate on the grounds of recognition of college or enrollment then it is not invalid.

Hence the SC allowed the appeal by BCI and concluded the case.