Bar Council of India’s Power to Set Enrolment Norms Upheld: Rabi Sahu Case (2023)

Date of the Judgment: June 9, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 577
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Sanjay Kumar, J.
Can the Bar Council of India (BCI) set additional requirements for enrolling as an advocate, or is a law degree enough? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the BCI’s power to regulate legal education and enrolment. This judgment settles a long-standing debate about the extent of BCI’s authority in setting pre-enrolment conditions for advocates. The bench comprised of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

In 2009, Rabi Sahu, the first respondent, obtained a law degree from Vivekananda Law College, Angul. However, this college was not recognized or approved by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Earlier, on January 5, 2002, the BCI had directed Vivekananda Law College not to admit students, stating that such students would not be eligible for enrolment as advocates. This directive was reiterated on February 28, 2011, to the Orissa State Bar Council. Consequently, the Orissa State Bar Council rejected Rabi Sahu’s application for enrolment as an advocate on May 4, 2011. Aggrieved by this rejection, Rabi Sahu filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Orissa High Court allowed Rabi Sahu’s writ petition on September 21, 2012, directing the BCI to enroll him as an advocate. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India and another [(1999) 3 SCC 176], which stated that if a candidate meets the requirements of Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and does not have any disqualifications under Section 24A, they are entitled to enrollment. The High Court further held that the BCI could not add any additional conditions for enrollment beyond what is prescribed in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, and the operation of the High Court’s order was stayed on January 28, 2013.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, specifies the qualifications for a person to be admitted as an advocate. It states that a person must be a citizen of India, have completed the age of twenty-one years, and have obtained a law degree from a recognized university, among other requirements. Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, lists the disqualifications for enrolment. Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, grants the Bar Council of India (BCI) the power to make rules for discharging its functions under the Act. Specifically, Section 49(1)(ag) read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the BCI to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate.

Arguments

The Bar Council of India (BCI) argued that it has the power to set standards for legal education and enrolment. They contended that a law degree from a college not recognized by the BCI should not qualify a person for enrolment as an advocate. The BCI relied on Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to assert its authority to prescribe norms for enrolment.

The Orissa High Court, in its decision, had relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India and another [(1999) 3 SCC 176]. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the BCI could not frame rules adding conditions for enrolment beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The High Court had opined that once a candidate fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and did not suffer any disqualification under Section 24A, he would be entitled to enrolment as an Advocate.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power to prescribe norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an advocate, including the requirement that a candidate must have completed his law course from a college recognized/approved by the BCI.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India and another [(1999) 3 SCC 176] – Supreme Court of India. This case was relied upon by the Orissa High Court.
• Bar Council of India vs. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 969 of 2023 etc., decided on 10.02.2023] – Supreme Court of India. This Constitution Bench judgment overruled the decision in V. Sudeer (supra).
• Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 – Specifies the qualifications for enrolment as an advocate.
• Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 – Lists the disqualifications for enrolment as an advocate.
• Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 – Grants the BCI the power to make rules regarding enrolment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain the standards of legal education and the legal profession. The Court emphasized that the BCI has a crucial role in regulating legal education and ensuring that only qualified individuals are enrolled as advocates. The Court also gave significant weight to the Constitution Bench decision in Bar Council of India vs. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors., which clarified the BCI’s powers.

The Court explicitly stated, “Perusal of the Constitution Bench judgment reflects that the decision in V. Sudeer (supra ) was held to be not good law.” The Court further noted, “It was categorically held that Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Act of 1961 vested BCI with the power to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate.” The Court concluded, “We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that 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.”

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the BCI’s powers were limited to what was explicitly mentioned in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Instead, it emphasized the BCI’s broader role in regulating the legal profession and ensuring that only qualified persons are enrolled as advocates. The Court’s reasoning was based on a combined reading of Sections 24 and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, along with the Constitution Bench’s judgment in Bar Council of India vs. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors..

The Court considered the interpretation that BCI cannot add any condition beyond Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, but rejected it as it was based on the overruled judgment of V.Sudeer (supra).

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power to set pre-enrolment conditions for advocates.
• ✓ A law degree from a college not recognized or approved by the BCI does not qualify a person for enrolment as an advocate.
• ✓ The judgment in V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India has been overruled.
• ✓ Prospective law students must ensure they attend a BCI-recognized college to be eligible for enrolment as an advocate.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Orissa High Court, which had directed the BCI to enroll Rabi Sahu as an advocate.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power to prescribe norms for enrolment of advocates, including the requirement that a candidate must have completed his law course from a college recognized/approved by the BCI. This decision overturns the previous position of law as laid down in V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India and another [(1999) 3 SCC 176]. The judgment clarifies the BCI’s role in regulating legal education and ensuring that only qualified individuals are enrolled as advocates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rabi Sahu case upholds the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) authority to set pre-enrolment conditions for advocates. By overruling the earlier decision in V. Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India, the Court has clarified that the BCI has the power to ensure that only candidates from recognized law colleges are enrolled as advocates. This decision reinforces the BCI’s role in maintaining standards in legal education and the legal profession.