Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8571 OF 2013
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ....Appellant
Vs.
RABI SAHU & ANR. ....Respondents
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Bar Council of India (BCI) is in appeal against the order dated 21.09.2012
passed by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C). No. 32506 of 2011. By the
said order, BCI was directed to forthwith enrol the writ petitioner, viz., respondent No. 1
herein, as an Advocate.
2. By order dated 28.01.2013, this Court stayed the operation of the
impugned order.
3. Despite service of notice, neither of the respondents, viz., the writ
petitioner and the Orissa State Bar Council, chose to appear before this Court.
4. Respondent No. 1 herein 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 05.01.2002, BCI had directed Vivekananda Law
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2023.06.09
14:24:41 IST
Reason:
College, Angul, not to admit students in law course stating that students so
admitted would not be eligible for enrolment as Advocates. BCI stated to this effect
1
again in its letter dated 28.02.2011 addressed to the Orissa State Bar Council. As a
corollary, 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 W.P.(C). No. 32506 of 2011 before the Orissa High Court.
5. The said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the Orissa
High Court under the impugned order dated 21.09.2012. Reliance was placed by
the Division Bench on the earlier judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer vs. Bar
Council of India and another [(1999) 3 SCC 176] and on the strength thereof, the
Division Bench opined that once a candidate fulfilled the conditions stipulated in
Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1961’), and did not
suffer any disqualification under Section 24A thereof, he would be entitled to
enrolment as an Advocate. Further, the Division Bench held that BCI could not
frame rules and add any condition for enrolment in addition to what was prescribed
under Section 24 of the Act of 1961. Holding so, the Division Bench granted relief to
respondent No. 1, as set out supra .
6. The earlier decision of this Court in V. Sudeer ( supra ) fell for
consideration recently before a Constitution Bench in Bar Council of India vs.
Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 969 of 2023 etc., decided on
10.02.2023] . Perusal of the Constitution Bench judgment reflects that the decision
in V. Sudeer ( supra ) was held to be not good law. The Constitution Bench held that
the BCI’s role prior to enrolment cannot be ousted and the ratio decidendi in
V.Sudeer ( supra ), that it was not one of the statutory functions of BCI to frame rules
imposing pre-enrolment conditions, was erroneous. It was categorically held that
2
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 and in
consequence, the interdict placed by the decision in V. Sudeer ( supra ) on the
power of BCI could not be sustained. The Constitution Bench, accordingly, held that
V. Sudeer ( supra ) did not lay down the correct position of law.
7. Viewed thus, 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.
8. 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 appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated
21.09.2012 passed by the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C). No. 32506 of 2011.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
.............................................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
............................................J.
[SANJAY KUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 9, 2023.
3