Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 319
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J.
Can the legal profession maintain its integrity when unqualified individuals are practicing law? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question by establishing a High Powered Committee to oversee the verification of advocates’ credentials. This move comes in response to concerns about the prevalence of fake degrees and the need to ensure that only qualified individuals are allowed to practice law, safeguarding the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice J B Pardiwala, delivered this judgment. The court’s decision aims to streamline the verification process and weed out individuals practicing law without proper qualifications.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed by a practicing advocate, Ajay Shankar Srivastava, who raised concerns about two main issues: the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) directive to halt the verification of advocates by State Bar Councils and the process of filling casual vacancies in State Bar Councils. The BCI had issued an office order on November 1, 2022, which, according to the petitioner, was intended to stop the verification process of advocates. This order was issued because the BCI believed that some State Bar Councils were not properly verifying the educational qualifications of advocates before issuing certificates of practice.
The BCI had initiated the verification process in 2015 with the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015. However, the process faced challenges, including charges demanded by universities for verifying educational certificates. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had to intervene on March 1, 2017, directing universities not to charge for verification of educational certificates. Despite these efforts, the verification process has been slow, with a large number of advocates yet to submit their verification forms.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015 | Bar Council of India notified the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015. |
| March 1, 2017 | A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court directed all Universities not to demand charges for verification of educational certificates. |
| November 1, 2022 | Bar Council of India issued an office order to all State Bar Councils, directing them not to proceed with the verification process until further orders. |
| April 10, 2023 | Supreme Court constituted a High Powered Committee to monitor the verification process. |
| August 31, 2023 | Deadline for the High Powered Committee to submit a status report to the Supreme Court. |
| September 11, 2023 | Date for next hearing of the petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The 2015 Rules were challenged in several High Courts, including the High Court of Delhi. The Bar Council of India then filed a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court to consolidate these cases. The Supreme Court transferred all the proceedings to itself in Transferred Case (Civil) No 126 of 2015.
The BCI formed a High Powered Committee to monitor the verification process, which included a former Supreme Court judge, two former High Court judges, and three BCI members. The verification process was hampered by the charges that universities were demanding for verification. This led to the Supreme Court’s intervention on March 1, 2017, directing universities to stop charging for verification.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework for this case is the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015 (referred to as “2015 Rules”). These rules were established to verify the certificates and place of practice of advocates enrolled with State Bar Councils. The need for these rules arose from concerns about the authenticity of educational degrees and enrollments of advocates.
The judgment also touches upon the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. It emphasizes that only those with the required educational qualifications and valid degrees should be allowed to practice law.
Arguments
The petitioner, Ajay Shankar Srivastava, challenged the BCI’s office order dated November 1, 2022, which he believed halted the verification process of advocates. He argued that this order was detrimental to the process of ensuring that only qualified individuals are practicing law.
The Bar Council of India, represented by Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, clarified that the intent of the November 1, 2022 letter was not to stop the verification process entirely. Instead, it was meant to ensure that the verification process was not carried out solely based on the certificates of practice issued by the State Bar Councils. The BCI emphasized the need to verify the genuineness and validity of the educational degree certificates of advocates.
The BCI argued that a significant number of advocates had not submitted their verification forms, raising concerns that many of these individuals may not be qualified or may possess fake degrees. They highlighted that such individuals pose a threat to the administration of justice and need to be identified and removed from the list of enrolled advocates. The BCI also pointed out that some individuals with questionable credentials have been elected to State Bar Councils and even occupied judicial office.
The BCI justified the need for a thorough verification process to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice, emphasizing that the process must encompass both the educational degree certificates and the certificates of enrollment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s Submission: Challenge to BCI’s Office Order |
|
| Bar Council of India’s Submission: Justification for Verification Process |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:
- Whether the office order dated 1 November 2022 of the Bar Council of India was intended to interdict the process of verification of advocates.
- What is the appropriate method for verifying the genuineness of degrees and enrollments of advocates.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the office order dated 1 November 2022 of the Bar Council of India was intended to interdict the process of verification of advocates. | The Court clarified that the intent of the letter was not to stop the verification process but to ensure that the process was not carried out merely on the basis of the certificates of practice issued by the State Bar Council without verifying the genuineness and validity of degree certificates. |
| What is the appropriate method for verifying the genuineness of degrees and enrollments of advocates. | The Court constituted a High Powered Committee to monitor the process of verification. The committee is empowered to issue necessary guidelines and directions to ensure that the process of verification of advocates is duly carried out. The process of verification shall encompass both the educational degree certificates and the certificates of enrollment of the advocates concerned. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | How it was Considered | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015 | The court considered these rules as the basis for the verification process. | Bar Council of India |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submission that the BCI’s order halted verification | The Court clarified that the BCI’s order was not intended to halt verification, but to ensure thorough verification of educational degrees. |
| BCI’s submission that verification is necessary to weed out unqualified advocates | The Court agreed with the BCI and constituted a High Powered Committee to monitor the verification process. |
The Supreme Court constituted a High Powered Committee to monitor the verification process. The committee is empowered to issue necessary guidelines and directions to ensure that the process of verification of advocates is duly carried out. The process of verification shall encompass both the educational degree certificates and the certificates of enrollment of the advocates concerned.
The Court directed all Universities and Examination Boards to verify the genuineness of educational certificates without charging any fee. The requisitions made by the Bar Councils shall be carried out without undue delay, and the reports of the verification shall be submitted expeditiously.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring that only qualified individuals are allowed to practice law. The court emphasized the importance of verifying the educational qualifications of advocates to prevent unqualified individuals from disrupting the administration of justice. The court also considered the large number of advocates who had not submitted their verification forms, raising concerns about potential fake degrees.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Integrity of the legal profession | 40% |
| Ensuring qualified individuals practice law | 30% |
| Preventing disruption of administration of justice | 20% |
| Addressing concerns about fake degrees | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court stated, “The due verification of advocates who are enrolled with the State Bar Councils, is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice.”
The Court also noted, “Persons who profess to be lawyers, but do not either have the educational qualifications or degree certificates on the basis of which they could have lawfully granted entry to the Bar, pose a grave danger to the administration of justice to citizens.”
Further, the Court clarified, “The intent of the letter dated 1 November 2022 was not to direct the cessation of the process of verification, but only to ensure that the process of verification was not carried out merely on the basis of the certificates of practice issued by the State Bar Council without verifying the genuineness and validity of degree certificates.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A High Powered Committee has been constituted to monitor the verification of advocates’ credentials.
- ✓ All Universities and Examination Boards must verify educational certificates without charging any fee.
- ✓ State Bar Councils must comply with the directions of the Committee and report compliance.
- ✓ The verification process will encompass both educational degrees and enrollment certificates.
- ✓ This decision aims to weed out unqualified individuals from the legal profession, ensuring the integrity of the administration of justice.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The Committee shall consist of the specified members.
- The Committee is empowered to monitor the verification process and issue necessary guidelines.
- All State Bar Councils shall comply with the directions of the Committee.
- All Universities and Examination Boards shall verify educational certificates without charging any fee.
- The Committee shall submit a status report by August 31, 2023.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has taken a proactive step to ensure the integrity of the legal profession by establishing a High Powered Committee to oversee the verification of advocates’ credentials. This decision reinforces the importance of maintaining high standards in the legal profession and ensuring that only qualified individuals are allowed to practice law. This decision clarifies the intent of the BCI’s order and establishes a structured process for verification, emphasizing the need to verify both educational degrees and enrollment certificates.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Shankar Srivastava vs. Bar Council of India is a significant step towards ensuring the integrity of the legal profession. By forming a High Powered Committee to oversee the verification of advocates’ credentials, the court has addressed concerns about fake degrees and unqualified individuals practicing law. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining high standards in the legal profession and safeguarding the administration of justice.
Category
- Legal Profession
- Advocate Enrollment
- Verification of Advocates
- Bar Council of India
- Bar Council of India Act, 1961
- Section 6, Bar Council of India Act, 1961
FAQ
Q: Why did the Supreme Court form a committee to oversee advocate verification?
A: The Supreme Court formed the committee due to concerns about fake degrees and unqualified individuals practicing law, which threatens the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.
Q: What is the role of the High Powered Committee?
A: The committee is responsible for monitoring the verification process, issuing guidelines, and ensuring that both educational degrees and enrollment certificates of advocates are verified.
Q: Do universities have to verify educational certificates for advocates?
A: Yes, all Universities and Examination Boards are required to verify the genuineness of educational certificates without charging any fee.
Q: What should advocates do if they have not submitted their verification forms?
A: Advocates who have not submitted their verification forms should do so immediately and cooperate with the verification process to ensure they are qualified to practice law.
Q: What is the impact of this judgment on the legal profession?
A: This judgment aims to weed out unqualified individuals from the legal profession, ensuring that only those with the required qualifications and valid degrees are allowed to practice law, thereby maintaining the integrity of the profession.